Restriction to apply for higher post during training

Dear Client,
A service/employment bond itself does not create any relationship between an employer and an employee unless and until it is followed by the essential steps required to make the Bond valid and enforceable under the law. The validity and enforceability of employment bonds can be challenged based on Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act,1872, which prohibits any agreement in restraint of trade and profession. The law states that an agreement (employment bond) will be illegal only if it restrains someone from exercising a lawful profession/ trade/ business. As per the mandate of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act,1872, any terms and conditions of an agreement that directly or indirectly compel the employee to serve the employer or put a restriction on them joining the competitor or other employer are not valid. The employee has the right to resign from employment even if he has agreed to the employment bond to serve the employer for a specific period. In the case where the employer can prove that the employee is joining the competitor to disclose the trade secret, then the court may issue an injunction order restricting the employee from joining the competitor. Further, Section 73 of the Act makes provision for un-liquidated damages (not stipulated in a contract), Section 74 deals with liquidated damages (stipulated in a contract), and no compensation is attracted for mere breach of contract u/s.73 and 74 of the Act unless such breach resulted in an actual loss or damage to the opposite party employer. Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions that the State can impose in the interests of the general public, such as health, public order, or morality. The State can also mandate specific technical or educational qualifications to ensure competence in certain professions. Instead, right to work has gained some recognition through judicial interpretation, particularly about the right to life as stated under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis & Ors. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., decided on 10th July, 1985, (1985 (3) SCC 545) recognized the right to work as a fundamental right inherent in the right to life. Apart, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also recognize the right to work in employment and the state's responsibility to safeguard this right. The right to work prevents the removal of any person from employment or the deprivation of a person being employed, except as per the procedure established by the relevant laws. Thus, from the contents of the query, it prima facie appears that the arbitrary and discriminatory action of the department of atomic energy(DAE) to be unconstitutional and impermissible under the law that infringes the fundamental right of a person as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and is challengeable before the High Court, by moving a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief in the matter. Hence, it is recommended to consult with an experienced Senior Advocate to understand your rights and remedies to navigate the matter effectively.