Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, A.C.J.

1. The appellant has appeared in person before us and he challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.01.2026, whereby, the writ petition preferred by him was disposed of.

2. Brief facts which need to be noticed for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal are that the State Government had noted the Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for Academic Excellence Scheme in May, 2024 with the sole purpose to encourage advance studies to brilliant meritorious students in the country as well as abroad in various universities and institutions. As per the Scheme, 300 students have been chosen for studying abroad and 200 students were to be granted the scholarship in the country. As per the Scheme, merit was to be calculated and Selection Committee would select the concerned students who were to be awarded scholarship. Three different categories of students were to be earmarked belonging to E1 Category, E2 Category and E3 Category based on the total annual income of the students’ parents. As per Clause 13 of the Scheme, several conditions for grant of scholarship were laid down. For the purpose of the present case, the following conditions deserve to be noticed:-

                 

        

                 

                  (xv) A candidate may change the course of study or research—for which the scholarship has been sanctioned—at the University/Institution approved under the scheme only after obtaining the prior written approval of the Government of Rajasthan. However, this shall not allow any change in the duration of the candidate's course, or any degradation in the Times Higher Education World Rank / NIRF Overall Rank of the university/institution. Change of course of study or research is permitted only once during the scholarship period if necessary.

(Translation is ours)”

3. The appellant-petitioner had applied for the scholarship under the said Scheme on 24.05.2024, as he had received an offer letter on 21.02.2024 from the Pennsylvania State University, USA for Bachelor course of Computer Sciences (Majors). However, he was advised to withdraw his application of scholarship on 24.06.2024, as the subject of Computer Science falls under category of ‘Engineering’, while the appellant-petitioner was eligible for scholarship under the subjects of Science being ‘Physics’. He, therefore, withdrew his application and on the very same day filed a fresh application and thereafter, he received another revised offer on 24.06.2024 from the Pennsylvania State University, USA accepting for subject change for the course of ‘Physics’. On receipt of the revised offer letter dated 24.06.2024, the appellant-petitioner reapplied for scholarship under the Science Category which includes ‘Physics’ subject and he received a provisional selection on 24.03.2025, informing that he had been selected for scholarship and final communication of selection vide letter dated 28.04.2025 was conveyed allowing the appellant to join Bachelors of Science (BSC) Physics, UG from the Pennsylvania State University, USA (Main Campus) for a period of three years.

4. By the time, appellant-petitioner received the communication dated 28.04.2025, the acceptance from the Pennsylvania State University had expired. The appellant-petitioner thereafter received another provisional acceptance for scholarship in March, 2025 deferring his course from the Fall 25 starting September, 2025. But on account of the revised provisional acceptance, he had to change his subject from ‘Physics’ to ‘Data Science’. The appellant-petitioner also submitted a Defer Course request on 07.05.2025 on the scholarship portal. The appellant-petitioner states that portal had three options UC (University Change), CC (Course Change) and DC (Defer Course) and he had applied for the third (Defer Course) and in the meanwhile, the application had also been received with the Scholarship Department dated 07.05.2025. However, initially the issue arose if the course of Data Science falls under ‘Engineering’ or under ‘Science’, the Pennsylvania State University conveyed and informed that the course of Data Science is a branch of Science Head falls under ‘Sciences Course’ and not under ‘Engineering’. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that the request was converted by the Department to Course Change (CC) vide order dated 30.05.2025 and the same was declared ineligible on the basis of Guideline Point No.4. The appellant-petitioner also applied for USA visa but the same could not be obtained and in the meanwhile, the deadline to join the Pennsylvania State University by September, 2025 had expired. Being short of time, the appellant-petitioner applied for admission at Monash University, Australia for course of ‘Bachelors of Information Technology and Bachelors of Science (C2003)’. He received his acceptance letter on 04.11.2025 from Monash University. On receiving the said intimation, he was further informed that the confirmation of enrollment would only be granted after the appellant-petitioner would provide a Financial Guarantee letter to Monash University. A request was made by the appellant-petitioner to the Department for the change in the university on 04.11.2025 and the appellant-petitioner also requested to treat this as an upgrade of the university since it provided more comprehensive and research oriented curriculum. However, the appellant-petitioner was conveyed that while request for the university upgrade had been allowed but the request for course change had been rejected on the basis of Clause 13 (xv) of the Guidelines mentioned therein. The reason conveyed was that the Change of Course would only be permissible once during the scholarship duration and as the appellant-petitioner had changed the course twice, he was ineligible to get the scholarship. Aggrieved after submitting representation, the appellant- petitioner filed the writ petition which was non-suited by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the present appeal has been filed.

5. The appellant in person has submitted that the condition which has been made a basis to deprive the appellant from receiving the scholarship for Monash University in the subject of Data Sciences was clearly unjustified and illegal. He submitted that it is on account of the fault of the respondent-university that time and again the appellant has been deprived of pursuing his studies. He submits that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and held that since the change in university and Change in Course is permissible only once which the appellant had availed, any further change is not permissible under the Scholarship Scheme. The course of studies being different and even the university being different, the denial of scholarship was held to be in accordance with law. Appellant-petitioner submits that the change of subject and the change of university has been forced upon him due to the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the sanction timely. He submits that the prayer for change of university and change of subject cannot be understood in the manner the respondents have understood it under the Scheme.

6. So far as Mr. S.S. Naruka, learned Additional Advocate General is concerned, he has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that it is the student who has reflected his indecisiveness in taking up a particular course of studies, while initially he had wrongfully applied for the subject of Computer Science. Since he was ineligible for applying for the course of Computer Science, the appellant-petitioner changed his subject to Physics which was allowed by the Department and sanction was also given. Inspite thereto, the appellant did not join. He submits that the responsibility of obtaining visa squarely lies with the student and the Department was not in any manner involved. After the appellant did not receive the visa, he again applied for another university and instead of the Pennsylvania State University in USA, he wanted to pursue the course at Monash University in Australia.

7. Learned counsel submits that the State Government also allowed the change of university. However, in Monash University, Australia he could only be allowed to pursue the same subject which he was allowed at the Pennsylvania State University in USA, namely; ‘Physics’. But later on the appellant shifted from the subject of ‘Physics’ to ‘Data Science’. Since the change was more than once, the same was rightly rejected and the learned Single Judge keeping in view the scheme has rejected the writ petition. It may be noticed that after passing of the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 the petitioner himself changed the subject to Bachelor of Data Science in Computer Science to make it compatible with the course which he had obtained earlier with the Pennsylvania State University in USA.

8. We have considered the submissions.

9.  We find that the learned Single Judge has rejected the case of the appellant-petitioner on the ground that he cannot be permitted to change the course merely to make himself within the four corners of the Scheme. The entire gamut of the case before us is that the stand taken by the respondent-State that change in university and change in Course is permissible only once which the appellant had already availed and further change is not permissible under the Scholarship Scheme.

10. A look at the Scheme as noticed (supra) reflects that the law makers had flouted the Scheme with certain conditions. The selection of a student is based on his academic excellence and merit. However, he has to abide by certain conditions as laid down under Clause 13 for grant of the scholarship.

11. A close look of Sub-clauses (xiv) and (xv) of Clause 13 reflects that while it is upon the concerned student to get admission in the concerned foreign university or institutes for studying the course and thus, he has to arrange the visa etc. for himself. The student would be entitled to upgrade from one university to another with the permission of the State Government. However, on such upgradation, the scholarship which has already been given and spent while undergoing studies in the previous Institution will have to be adjusted and while pursuing studies in the old institute and the new institute, the scholarship amount shall be adjusted accordingly.

12. Similarly, Sub-clause (xv) reflects that a candidate would be entitled to shift his course of studies while undergoing the earlier course which would be of higher rank and he cannot change his course to a lower rank than what he is already undergoing and such change of university as provided under Sub-clause (xiv) and change of course as provided under Sub-clause (xv) can be availed only once during the studies. Curiously enough, both the clauses nowhere mention of the situation which is found in the present case.

13. In the present case, the student has not started his studies at all. Had he already started his studies and the scholarship would have been granted and utilized in a particular institute and then the student would have shifted to another university than the condition of allowing him to shift only once would have come into play. Similarly, if while undergoing studies in a particular subject, he would have upgraded to a higher course, then too it could have been done only once. But the present case is totally different, as noticed above, while the sanction was granted, the student could not avail the sanction because the same was delayed. The period of joining had expired for taking up the course of Physics in the Pennsylvania State University in USA. Next year, when the appellant was granted sanction for pursuing the course of Data Science at the Pennsylvania State University in USA, the visa could not be received in time, which resulted in him not joining the course. He, therefore, again applied for Monash University, Australia where too on account of the action of the Department, the sanction was not given within time and while giving sanction erroneously, he was informed that he cannot change his subject and the option was not available to him.

14. In our opinion, the letter denying him to pursue the course at Monash University, Australia was wholly a case of misconception and misunderstanding of the provisions of Sub-clause (xiv) and (xv) of Clause 13 of the Scheme. The conditions of change of subject and change of university only apply to a student who has started availing the scholarship and not before. Even now when the appellant has already again received and continued in the same subject which he originally was seeking namely; Data Science and the delay is at the end of the respondents.

15. We are told that the last date for submitting the formalities is also fast soon approaching. We may add here that interpretation of Clauses has to be done in a manner to help the student to pursue his course and not to create hurdles. It appears that one way or the other, the appellant was prevented from pursuing his course. After he joins the course, he would therefore not be allowed to change the subject to a lower level but would be allowed to change the university, if need so arises. Much time has elapsed since he had initially applied for the scholarship and a meritorious student has been deprived from pursuing his studies.

16. We can of course not bring back the years gone by but we now direct that the State Government shall immediately release the scholarship amount and also allow the appellant- petitioner to do all the formalities, which may be required for the purpose and the same shall also be done expeditiously.

17. Consequently, the speaking order of rejection or denial dated 29.12.2025 and order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge are quashed and set aside, with the direction as discussed above. Resultantly, the present special appeal is allowed.

18. The costs made easy.

19. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.