ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J)

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 5th respondent in O.A./310/00050/2017 dated 04.07.2019 consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Scientific Assistant/B – Industrial Safety (SA-05) pursuant to the Notification No. 02/2014 in the same manner in which it was given to the other candidate S.Mohandoss with seniority and all other attendant benefits.

The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) by way of an application challenging the order passed on 04.07.2019 by the appropriate authority of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (Centre) holding her ineligible for the post of Scientific Assistant (Industrial Safety), and an order of the Administrative Officer of that Centre on 04.10.2016 reiterating her non-selection.

2. The petitioner had completed Bachelors in the Sciences with a first class in 2006 from the Thiruvalluvar University. She had responded to an advertisement issued by the Department of Atomic Energy, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research/R1 calling for applications for Scientific Assistants. The qualification that was required qua Scientific Assistants in the discipline of Industrial Safety, was a 'Bachelor in Science with minimum 60% marks plus one year Diploma/Certificate Course in Industrial Safety'. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed her Diploma in Industrial Safety.

3. The application of the petitioner was processed and she was found eligible on all counts. The list of successful applicants that was published on-line reveal the name of the petitioner as being first in rank. Thereafter, the petitioner was in receipt of a communication from the respondents, wherein she was asked to provide a clarification on the manner by which she had computed the percentage, on the basis of which the application had been submitted by her.

4. To be noted that the marks secured by the petitioner in the course subjects are as follows and the computation of percentage was taking into account all subjects, core as well as non-core i.e., English (referred to hereinafter as Table A):-

5. The petitioner submitted a clarification to the effect that her claim of having secured 60.37% was based on the following marks wherein she had converted the marks in regard to the practicals to be based on 100% as against 60% on which she had been marked. (hereinafter referred to as Table B). This is what has led to a percentage of 60.37% as against 58.30% if the marks were to be taken as such.