FW: Your application for Faculty Program has been rejected
Jan 30 (2 days ago)
to pbala, me
I don’t know the reason for the rejection of my application. I will have to file rti act 2005 for this reason of rejection. I wanted to know the slected candidates details to know the tranparency. Best regards Prof. Sudalai Kumar. Sent from my Windows Phone
In response to the advertisement for July 2015 session, we have received your application for considering under INSPIRE Faculty Award component of the INSPIRE Program. The applications along with other documents were evaluated by the respective discipline-base expert committee, within the available mechanism of selection process. However, we regret to inform you that your application was not considered for offer of position in this session of INSPIRE Faculty Award.We thank you for showing your interest in this component and wishing you success in your future endeavor.
Reason : NO
Thanks INSPIRE (DST) Technology Bhawan New Mehrauli Road New Delhi 110016 Phone no -+ 91-1126567373
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.