PRAJAKTA SAVARKAR SHINDE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to be admitted to the one year Orientation Course for Engineering Graduate and Science Post-Graduates (hereinafter referred to as OCES Course for short) for the year 2009-2010 in the Training School to be conducted by the Department of Atomic Energy. The Petitioner has asked for further declaration that the policy/practice of the Respondents in issuing marks allotted to the students by the respective universities as per their Rules and Regulations using different methods (i.e. by taking average of all eight semesters/last six semesters/last two semesters etc.) for deciding the eligibility of such students who apply for admission to the one year Orientation Course for Engineering Graduate in the training schools conducted by the Department of Energy is per se illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, unconstitutional, null and void ab-initio and to quash the same. By way of amendment, the Petitioner has sought direction against Respondents 1, 2 & 3 to condone the Petitioner 's absence in the aforesaid OCES Course for the year 2009-2010 during the period from 1.9.2009 till the date of her admission including for the examinations (if missed by her during the above period) or to hold such examinations within a reasonable period after the date of her admission. It is further prayed that a writ be issued against Respondents 1 & 2 to withdraw and cancel the impugned undated decision of the Respondent No. 2 holding the Petitioner as not qualified to the one year OCES Course to be conducted by the Department of Atomic Energy. Further, the Respondents 1 & 2 be directed to give admission to the Petitioner for the said post to be conducted at the training schools of the Department of Atomic Energy and particularly at the BARC Training School, Mumbai (depending on her performance in the interview) and pay all the stipend, one time book allowance as mentioned in the letter dated 19.6.2009. The Petitioner has further prayed that record and proceedings of the impugned undated decision of the Respondent No. 2 holding the Petitioner as not qualified to the OCES Course for the year 2009-2010 to be conducted at the BARC Training School be produced and to quash and set aside the same.

(2.) The above reliefs are founded on the assertion that Petitioner is highly qualified student having cleared the degree of Electrical Engineering in 2005 with an average aggregate marks of 62.93% obtained by her in the Engineering Course. In the first year of the Engineering Course, she secured 64.65%. In the second year 66.81%, in the third year 61.04% and in the fourth year 59.25%. The average of aggregate marks work out to 62.9375%. The Petitioner asserts that she has worked in the software field for about 2 years. It is her case that in response to the publication issued by the Respondents, the Petitioner applied to the OCES Training Course. The said OCES Course is a training scheme formulated by the Central Government for employment of interested qualified persons in various autonomous bodies or institutions formed by it or Government owned companies, after giving such persons the necessary training for one year. It is stated that the other scheme of the Central Government is known as DAE Graduate Fellowships Scheme ("DGFS"), which involves imparting training for two years to the interested persons. The Petitioner, however, is not concerned with the latter scheme. It is stated that on successful completion of OCES Course work at the training school, the Petitioner would become entitled to Post- Graduate Diploma of Homi Bhabha National Institute ("HBNI"), a Deemed University, that would earn her credit towards M.Tech./M.Phil/Ph.D. of HBNI depending on her performance in the above specified threshold.

(3.) As aforesaid, according to the Petitioner, the Central Government through BARC had published the Information Brochure on its website www. npcil.co.in/hrdbarc/ocese.e.htm . The said Information Brochure gives detail information about the selection process, which inter alia includes screening of information, written test and interview. Suffice it to notice that the Petitioner made application pursuant to the said invitation given in the Information Brochure. Her application was numbered as 26739 dated 29.03.2009. It is stated that she submitted all the supporting documents including copies of the mark sheets for all the terms of her Engineering Course. On such application, a hall ticket was generated on the website itself. Thereafter, the Petitioner appeared in the written test and was declared successful. The Petitioner then received call to appear for interview to be held on 9.7.2009. According to the Petitioner, she received communication from Respondent No. 2 dated 19.6.2009 informing her that she has been short listed for interview for admission to BARC Training School. It is her case that she appeared for interview on 9.7.2009 and performed well. She also submitted the necessary documents as were required during the interview. Thereafter, she was asked to proceed for medical examination on 10.7.2009 and she was given the medical check up slip for that purpose. The Petitioner further asserts that she along with her mother went to BARC hospital at Trombay, Mumbai and underwent the medical examination conducted by the Medical Officer. According to the Petitioner, she was informed that she was medically fit. The Petitioner further asserts that as per her information, she has secured above 70% marks in the interview and in the overall list her number would have figured at a very high place entitling her to get admission in the BARC Training School, Mumbai. However, she was shocked and surprised to see in the above mentioned website of BARC that she was not selected for the said training course without disclosing any ground. In this background, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court for reliefs which are reproduced hitherto.