TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om September, 2009 to September, 2011 (two years). The Respondent wanted to avail the financial assistance under the Scheme of „Partial Funding of Foreign Study', under the Plan Scheme of DFFT, framed by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) vide OM dated 17.03.2008. The said Scheme inter alia provided:- "III. Institutes for which the eligible applicants would be supported: (i) Financial support may be extended to officers, who secure admission for a study programme in the foreign universities/ institutions, which figure in the list of top 200 universities/ institutions as per the THES-QS ranking, published each year. In addition, each cadre controlling authority may also recommend not more than 5 specialized or professional courses in specified foreign universities/institutions that they feel would be of particular relevance and importance for officers of that service." (emphasis supplied) 3. The respondent stated that since there was not much time to avail of the study leave and apply for financial assistance, he requested the foreign University for extension of the offer of admission, which was agreed to by the University and the admission was deferred till S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07.2013, "the applicant would have come to believe that his application for partial funding assistance under the scheme of respondent No.1 is being considered favourably". 5. The submission of Mr.Narula, learned counsel of Union of India is that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on Diptimayee Parida v. State of Orissa & Others, 2009 (2) SLJ 212 SC and Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Another, 2011 (3) SLJ 228 SC, was completely mislead inasmuch, as, those were cases relating to determination of eligibility of the candidates who were applying for public employment. The Supreme Court in both these decisions held that the crucial date of eligibility would be the last date of making of the application for public employment. Mr.Narula submits that the scheme for grant of partial funding of foreign education does not vest any right in the applicant to secure such funding. The scheme circulated on 17.03.2008 provides that "Financial support may be extended to officers........". The use of the expression "may" shows that there was no definite promise or representation made in the said circular that if the applicant Government servant meets their eligibility norms sti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r considered opinion, such 'settled expectation', if any, did not create any vested right to obtain sanction. True it is that the respondent-company which can have no control over the manner of processing of application for sanction by the Corporation cannot be blamed for delay but during pendency of its application for sanction, if the State Government, in exercise of its rule making power, amended the Building Rules and imposed restrictions on the heights of buildings on G.T. Road and other wards, such 'settled expectation' has been rendered impossible of fulfilment due to change in law. The claim based on the alleged 'vested right' or 'settled expectation' cannot be set up against statutory provisions which were brought into force by the State Government by amending the Building Rules and not by the Corporation against whom such 'vested right' or 'settled expectation' is being sought to be enforced. The 'vested right' or 'settled expectation' has been nullified not only by the Corporation but also by the State by amending the Building Rules. Besides this such a 'settled, expectation' or so-called 'vested....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contempt application alleging that the excise authorities had disobeyed the order dated 14.12.2001. 25. In the contempt case, the High Court made an order on 12.2.2002 that the new Excise Commissioner should pass an order on the application. Therefore the only question is whether the order passed by the Excise Commissioner on 20.2.2002 was in accordance with the Rules as they stood on 20. 2.2002. Under the amended rules, no new FL-3 licence could be issued. Consequently, the rejection of the application by order dated 20.2.2002 was in accordance with the rules and cannot be faulted." 7. Mr.Narula further submits that the respondent initially made his application in the year 2009. The communication was issued on 13.08.2009, but Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance required the respondent to send this formal application for study leave through proper channel. Accordingly, the respondent had submitted his application for grant of study leave only on 11.05.2011 i.e. nearly two years later. 8. Mr.Narula has also referred to the respondent's communication of 30.08.2012, wherein he referred to his application moved in the first quarter of 2011. He stated that he ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t may be extended to officers (emphasis supplied). The relevant para III (i) of the OM reads as under:- "III Institutes for which the eligible applicants would be supported: (i) Financial support may be extended to officers, who secure admission for a study programme in the foreign universities/institutions, which figure in the list of top 200 universities/institutions as per the THES-OS ranking, published each year. In addition, each cadre controlling authority may also recommend not more than 5 specialized or professional courses in specified foreign universities/institutions that they feel would be of particular relevance and importance for officers of that service."(emphasis supplied) 12. This provision of the Scheme in itself makes it clear that no employee has a right to insist that merely because he fulfils the eligibility criteria, he must be granted financial support for the course which he proposes to undertake. It is for the Government to decide upon consideration of all relevant factors, as to whether financial support may, or may not be granted to any employee. No doubt, the said decision had to be based on consideration of all relevant criteria and cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme introduced vide OM dated 06.05.2011 was already enforced, and the Respondent's case was not covered by the said Scheme. Therefore, we find force in the arguments raised by Mr.Narula, that on the crucial date when the Respondent's application was considered, his case was admittedly not covered by the then prevalent Scheme. The Petitioner was, therefore, fully justified in not granting financial support to the Respondent, as by the said date, the guidelines which had come into force clearly stated that to be eligible for financial support, the Officer had to secure admission for a study programme in foreign university/institution which figures in the list of top 100 universities. That being the position, the Respondent cannot claim that his case ought to have been considered in terms of the earlier policy dated 17.03.2008, merely because he had submitted an application before 06.05.2011 i.e. before the new policy came into force. 16. We also find from the record that the Respondent, much after having already left for undertaking the course in October, 2011, had, vide his letter dated 30.08.2012, asked for information regarding the status of his application for partial funding ....