Delhi High Court
Kritika Mishra vs Ministry Of Science And ... on 15 September, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7351/2015
KRITIKA MISHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Alok Kumar, Adv.
versus
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 15.09.2015
1. By this writ petition, challenge is laid to the rejection of the
petitioner's application for Inspire Scholarship (2013). A consequent
direction is also sought for award of Inspire Scholarship to the petitioner by
respondents for the year 2013.
2. The petitioner had appeared for class XII examination conducted
under the aegis of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.,
Allahabad (in short the Board). The petitioner sat for this examination in
2013. Upon the result being declared by the Board, she ranked amongst the
top 1% of the students, who sat for the said examination.
2.1 Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application for award of Inspire
Scholarship via the website of the respondents on 05.10.2013.
Inadvertently, it appears, the petitioner could not enclose the "Endorsement
Certificate" which was one of the documents stipulated by the respondents
for processing the application. Other information and documents, such as
the passport size photograph of the petitioner, XIIth class marksheet, Xth
class certificate, XIIth board eligibility note and rank certificate of
competitive examination, were supplied.
2.2 The petitioner having realized her mistake, avers, that as a measure of
abundant caution, the application was also dispatched in the physical form
via speed post, on 07.10.2013. It is also the stand of the petitioner that with
this application, which was sent by post, the Endorsement Certificate was
duly appended.
3. The respondents, however, on processing the petitioner's online
application, communicated their rejection to the petitioner on 02.08.2014.
Since, the rejection communication sent by the respondents itself provided
for making of a representation, the petitioner did the needful vide an on-line
communication dated 28.08.2014. The aforesaid was followed by yet
another representation dated 14.04.2015.
4. Since, the petitioner did not get the requisite response from the
respondents, the instant writ petition has been filed in this court. Notice in
this petition was issued on 03.08.2015. Since, then, the respondents have
filed a counter affidavit.
5. Mr Bhardwaj, who appears for the respondents, says that the only
reason the petitioner has been denied Inspire Scholarship is on account of
the fact that the on-line application filed by her did not include the
Endorsement Certificate. It is also Mr Bhardwaj's stand, based on the
affidavit filed, that while a representation with supporting documents was
sent by the petitioner, the same was received by the respondents only on
19.08.2014, which is, a date beyond the cut-off date i.e. 10.08.2014.
6. A perusal of the affidavit would show that there is an admission on
the part of the respondents to the effect that on account of an error in the
software concerning their on-line procedure, it was earlier indicated that
representations could be made till 10.09.2014. It is averred in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents that this error was corrected, to indicate
that the cut-off date for submission of a representation was, in fact,
10.08.2014.
6.1 What is, however, not stated in the counter affidavit is, as to when this
error was cured.
7. Therefore, what emerges from the stand taken by the respondents, is
that, a representation with the endorsement certificate and all other
documents concerning the denial of Scholarship was received by the
respondents. The respondents, however, contend that the representation was
received after the cut-off date i.e. 10.08.2014. As indicated above, the cut-
off date earlier communicated for making representations was 10.09.2014.
As to when this error was cured, is not indicated by the respondents, a fact
which has been noted hereinabove.
8. Be that as it may, it is the stand of the petitioner that a representation
in physical form via speed post was sent on 07.10.2013, which is two days
after the submission of the on-line application. In these circumstances, in
ordinary course, the respondents ought to have received the application sent
by the petitioner via post much before the cut off date for submission, which
was 09.12.2013.
8.1 The grievance redressal representation made by the petitioner only
followed the application sent by post. There is no denial of this fact that the
petitioner's application via speed post was not received by the respondents.
In these circumstances, it is to be assumed in favour of the petitioner that an
application sent by the petitioner was received by the respondents. I am,
therefore, inclined to grant the prayer sought for by the petitioner. It is
ordered accordingly.
9. The communication whereby scholarship is denied is held to be illegal
and, therefore, the communication dated 02.08.2014 sent in that behalf is
quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to award the Inspire
scholarship for 2013 to the petitioner.
10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The
needful will be done within four weeks from today. The parties will,
however, bear their own costs.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
kk
