03 April 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

Five social welfare institutions have filed a legal challenge against the government's decision to scrap a scholarship program for training candidates from disadvantaged communities.

The dispute centers around a government resolution that established a program for these institutions to provide training for competitive exams. The institutions argue they were promised a five-year term to run the program and invested resources based on that expectation.

However, the government revoked the initial resolution and issued a new one forming a committee to create uniform guidelines for various scholarship programs. This new resolution effectively cuts off the previous program, leaving the social welfare institutions in the lurch.

The institutions are making a three-pronged argument:

• Broken Promise: They claim the government's initial resolution constituted a binding promise for a five-year term. They invested resources based on this "legitimate expectation," and the government's backtracking is unfair.
• Vested Rights: The agreements they signed with the government based on the first resolution created vested rights for them to continue the training program.
• Malicious Intent: They suspect the new resolution is a ploy to bypass interim court orders favoring them in a previous case related to the program.

The government counters these arguments by stating:

• No Clear Promise: The initial resolution did not explicitly guarantee a five-year term.
• No Vested Rights: Agreements with the institutions had a one-year term, and the government has the authority to change policies.
• Public Interest: The new resolution aims to establish a centralized and competitive selection process for training centers, ensuring better allocation of public funds.

The court ultimately sided with the government. The judges acknowledged the concept of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, but ruled that the institutions failed to establish a clear and unequivocal promise from the government regarding a five-year term.

Even if an expectation existed, the court held that the government can modify policies to pursue a compelling public interest, such as a more efficient selection process for training centers. The court further found no evidence to support the claim of malicious intent behind the new resolution.

The dismissal of the petition leaves the future of the training program uncertain. The social welfare institutions may need to adapt or seek alternative means to continue their work. The government, on the other hand, will proceed with implementing the new selection process for training centers under the revised program.