Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s case to furnish the requisite documents to avail the INSPIRE scholarship, Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.*, observed that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner had supplied the copies of her mark sheet for all the semesters to the respondent. Further, the respondent’s counsel upon instructions, fairly stated that as per the mark sheets supplied for the all the semesters, the petitioner was eligible for the INSPIRE Scholarship for the entire term of three years.
Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court deemed it apposite to direct that the respondent would consider the case of the petitioner for the ‘INSPIRE Scholarship’ and grant the requisite scholarship.
Background
In the present case, 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 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 controversy arising in the present case was that though that though the petitioner was found eligible for the scholarship and a provisional offer was uploaded on the respondent’s portal, but the petitioner did not timely furnish the requisite documents.
The petitioner contended that 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 7-6-2017, a copy of which has been placed on record. The petitioner claimed that the said e-mail 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 17-1-2017 with outer limit of 120 days for uploading the requisite documents.
However, the respondent contended that 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.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that 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 17-1-2017 was 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 e-mail, which in the present case was received after the time period specified.
The Court noted that on receipt of the email, the petitioner, realizing the unavailability of the link to upload documents, immediately communicated her grievance to the ministry concerned vide request letter dated 20-9-2017. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner had supplied the copies of her mark sheet for all the semesters to the respondent. Further, the respondent’s counsel upon instructions, fairly stated that as per the mark sheets supplied for the all the semesters, the petitioner was eligible for the INSPIRE Scholarship for the entire term of three years.
Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court deemed it apposite to direct that the respondent would 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 22-5-2025.
[Anuradha Verma v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 6414 of 2018, decided on 22-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Harsh Tikoo and Namit Dixit, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, Senior Panel Counsel with Samiksha, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
