Delhi High Court
Anuradha Verma vs Union Of India on 22 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 6414/2018
ANURADHA VERMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harsh Tikoo and Mr. Namit
Dixit, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, Senior
Panel Counsel with Ms. Samiksha,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent to consider the
petitioner's case to furnish the requisite documents to avail the 'INSPIRE'
Scholarship.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the Department of Science and
Technology under the Ministry of Science and Technology came out with
'INSPIRE Scholarship' under the Scholarship for Higher Education ('SHE')
component of Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research
('INSPIRE Scheme'). In December, 2015, the respondent called applications
from the eligible candidates for a total of 10,000 scholarships that were
available annually. As per the Eligibility & Selection Criteria, the
scholarship was limited to the candidates who had passed Class XII in the
year 2015 from various recognized Indian State and Central Boards and
studying certain courses in Natural/Basic Science in any UGC recognized
college/university/National Institution in India. The criteria further required
that the eligibility will be assessed on the basis of: (a) Performance in Board
Examination within the cut-off threshold (top 1%) for each State or Central
Examination in the year 2015 at Class-XII level and/or (b) Performance in
any of specified competitive examination within stipulated cut-off ranks and
recipients of various scholarships and medals.
3. Under the INSPIRE Scholarship, the selected candidates were to be
supported for a maximum period of five years starting from first year course.
The continuation of scholarship for selected candidates beyond the first year
was based on the performance in examinations conducted and certified by
the institution imparting education. The instructions stipulated in the
advertisement further required the eligible candidates to submit the online
applications between 01.11.2015 (10-00 hours) to 15.12.2015 (17-00 hours)
at http://www.online-inspire.gov.in.The instructions specifically asked the
candidates not to submit the application or any other document by post,
other than submitting online.
4. The controversy arising in the present case is that though that though
the petitioner was found eligible for the scholarship and a provisional offer
was uploaded on the respondent's portal, however the petitioner did not
timely furnish the requisite documents i.e. (i) details of her bank account (ii)
performance report and (iii) copy of mark-sheets duly certified. The
petitioner contends that as per the instructions under the advertisement, the
respondent was duty bound to inform the petitioner about the status of her
application i.e, the provisional offer through email, which the petitioner
received only on 07.06.2017, a copy of which has been placed on record.
The petitioner claims that the said email was received after the link for
uploading the documents had expired. Notably, the status of applications by
the candidates was made available on the portal on 17.01.2017 with outer
limit of 120 days for uploading the requisite documents.
5. The respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioner
failed to furnish the requisite information within the stipulated time and for
which reason, her application remained unsuccessful for the scholarship to
be granted. The respondent, however, concedes that had the requisite
documents been furnished, the benefit under the scheme would have been
available to the petitioner.
6. Insofar as the alleged delay in informing the petitioner of the status of
her application, it is contended that automated mails were sent to all selected
candidates on 17.01.2017 and the email received by the petitioner on
07.06.2017 was sent by mistake as on that date, the emails for 2016 batch
were issued.
7. Pertinently, keeping in view the aforesaid contention of the
respondent, this Court vide order dated 12.07.2023 directed the respondent
to file a technical status report on the aspect of whether the earlier automated
email dated 17.01.2017, was even sent to the petitioner. A technical status
report has been placed on record, as per which the respondent claimed to
have contacted NIC, which has responded by stating that it does not
maintain data older than two years. As a result, the respondent has not been
able to categorically confirm if it ever sent any prior email on 17.01.2017.
8. A perusal of the advertisement would show that all postal
communications were prohibited and the onus was upon the respondent to
communicate to the petitioner about status of her application. The relevant
extract of the notification reads as under:-
"...The applicants are advised to obtain a print out of the
submitted online application for his/her records. Please do not
send the application or any other documents by Post submitted
online The following points may be observed by the applicant
very carefully.
(i) Incomplete or wrongly filled up application or application
with lack of essential documents will summarily be rejected.
(ii) The applicant's own valid and functional email address must
be used for submission of the On-line application The status of
the application will be informed to the applicant's email that is
registered in the On-line portal.
xxx
One can view the status of the application by entering the
Application Reference Number in the portal. After due
evaluation of your application, you shall be informed about its
status through an Email notification that will be sent to the
registered Email address.
(Emphasis added)
9. It further provided that after the online submission of application, the
applicant must obtain a print out of the submitted application for his/her
records.
10. Pertinently, the time gap between the last date for submission of
applications i.e. 15.12.2015 and the alleged uploading of the provisional
offer on the respondent's portal to selected candidates on 17.01.2017 is
about 13 months. As per the instructions in the advertisement, the
respondent was duty bound to inform the petitioner about her being
provisionally selected through an email, which in light of the
aforementioned facts was received after the time period specified.
11. It is also to be noted that on receipt of the email, the petitioner,
realizing the unavailability of the link to upload documents, immediately
communicated her grievance to the concerned ministry vide request letter
dated 20.09.2017.
12. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has supplied
the copies of her mark sheet for all the semesters to the respondent. Learned
counsel for the respondent, upon instructions, fairly states that in terms of
the mark sheets supplied for the all the semesters, the petitioner was eligible
for the INSPIRE Scholarship for the entire term of three years.
13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court deems
it apposite to direct that the respondent will consider the case of the
petitioner for the 'INSPIRE Scholarship' and grant the requisite scholarship,
subject to due verification and without any unnecessary delay, not later than
six weeks from today.
14. The petition is disposed of in above terms.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
MAY 22, 2025/rd
