Navin Adarsh Audyogik Prasikshan Kendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 3313 OF 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Adarsh Audyogik Navin Prasikshan Kendra, village Dhanora, Post Hanoda, District and Tahsil Durg (CG), through its Secretary, D.L. Sahu, S/o Late Shri Bihari resident of Ashish Lal Sahu, 61 years, 'Om Shivsakti', Plot No.18-A, Nagar, Bhilai, Durg (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Employment and Training, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Employment Director, Chhattisgarh, Government Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Training, DKS Additional Director, Employment Training, Government of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). through Director, Ministry Union of India, Emptoyment, Director Labour & General Employment & Training, New Delhi.

4. And WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 3060 OF 2009 Adarsh Audyogik Prasikshan Navin Kendra, village Dhanora, Post Hanoda, District and Tahsil Durg (CG), through its Secretary, D.L. Sahu, S/o Late Shri Bihari resident of Ashish Lal Sahu, 62 years, 'Om Shivsakti', Plot No.18-A, Nagar, Bhilai, Durg (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Employment and Training, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Employment Director, Chhattisgarh, Government Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Training, DKS Joint Director, Employment and Training, DKS Chhattisgarh, Government Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Labour Union of India, through Director, Ministry Employment, Director General Employment & Training, New Delhi. &

3. . 4. ^ ^ (Writ petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present:- Shri T.K. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to3. Ms Sharmila Singhai, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India/respondent No.4.

2. ORDER (Passed on this «?/'* dav of July, 2009) Heard learned counsel for the parties. W.P. (C) Nos.3313 of 2008 and 3060 of 2009 involve the same question of law and, as such, both the petitions are considered and disposed of by this common order.

3. By these writ petitions, the petitioner seeks for quashing the order dated 29th February, 2008 (Annexure - P/5) in W.P. (C) No.3313 of 2008 and the order dated 6th February, 2009 (Annexure - P/5) in W.P. (C) No. 3060 of 2009. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to register the names of the students and issue admission card so that the students can appear in the final examination.

4. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that: W.P.(C) 3313 of 2008 :- the petitioner institute is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner institute is running an Industrial Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as 'ITI'). The petitioner ,was granted permission to open two units of Electrician trade subject to construction of wiring board and supply of three phase connection by order dated 26th July, 1993 (Annexure P/1). On 28th July, 1994, two units of Electrician trade was reduced to one, however, permission to start Fitter trade was granted. On 26 July, 1995, the permission was renewed for running two units offitter trade in two shifts. The memo dated 01st October, 1998 (Annexure P/2) indicates that the petitioner institute was permitted to run four ^ units of fitter trade and four units of Electridan trade. On 11 February, 2004, (Annexure P/3), a notice was issued by the Joint Director, Directorate of Training and Employment, Government of Chhattisgarh, stating that the petitioner institute has affiliation for four units of fitter trade and four units of Electrician trade and in order to maintain the affiliation for four units, it was directed that the institute should maintain the minimum standard of training as a permanent committee has been constituted to make inspection of the institute and if is found that the institute is not maintaining proper infrastructure and other facilities, the affiliation of the institute may be cancelled in accordance with law. The petitioner admitted 36 students to Electrician trade for the academic session 2006-2008, in August, 2006, and after completion oftwo years course, submitted an application with registration fee of students of two units as per Annexure P/4. The respondent authorities, by letter dated 29th February, 2008 (Annexure P/5), declined to register the students admitted in August, 2006, as according to the respondent No. 2, students were not admitted in accordance with the affiliation granted by the National Council for Vocational Training (for short 'NCVT'). W.P.fCl 3060/2009 :- petitioner institute admitted 34 students in Electrician trade for the academic session 2007-2009 in the first year and submitted registration fee of students of two units. hlowever, the respondent authorities, by letter dated 06th February, 2009 (Annexure P/5), directed the petitioner institute to submit details of the students admitted again, but no order passed, thereon, if any has been found on the record. It appears that no final order has been passed.

5. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has never communicated the affiliation from NCVT directly. The affiliation is sent to the State Government and from there it is forwarded to the petitioner institute. Since the State Government by notice dated 11l February, 2004 (Annexure - P/3) ctearly stated that the petitioner institute was having affiliation for 4 units in Electrical trade, the petitioner accordingly admitted the students for 2 units in 2006 and for 2 units in 2007. Thus, impugned order dated 29 February, 2008 (Annexure -- P/5) may be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to register the names of the students and issue admission cards so that the students can appear in the final examination. Per contra, Shri Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, in W.P.(C) No. 3313/2008, would submit that the affiliation for starting any unit is granted by NCVT, which is under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. The petitioner has not submitted any form for obtaining affiliation from NCVT in the year 2006. Reliance of the petitioner on letter dated 11th February, 2004, issued by the office of the respondent No. 2, does not indicate that the petitioner has affiliation from NCVT for four units in Electrician trade. The mentioning of four units was under a bonafide mistake. In fact, the petitioner has affiliation only for two units in Electrician Trade. The petitioner admitted students for one unit in the year 2005 in Electrician trade. Thereafter, the petitioner ought to have admitted students only for one unit in the year 2006 but instead, admitted students/trainees for two units which was not permissible. The petitioner has not produced any document support of its contention that the petitioner has affiliation for four units from 2006 till 2008. Thus, the authorities rejected granting registration of trainees and admission to examination by letter dated 29th February, 2008 (Annexure P/5). On perusal of the earlier communications dated 26th July, 1993, 28th July 1994, 26th July, 1995, and 22nd September, 1995, is clear that the petitioner institute do not have affiliation for more than two units in Electrician trade at any time. In the past also, the petitioners were never permitted to admit students during the period 2000 to 2004 in Electrician trade.

7. Shri Bakshi, would further submit despite several communications, the petitioner institute has not produced any affiliation letter or any document to show that the petitioner was granted affiliation for 4 units in Electrical trade. By letter dated 25th October, 2005 (Annexure - R-1-3/D) issued by the Director of Training (WT), Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment (DGE & T), the State Government was directed to verify all affiliated ITI/ITC/trade/unit and submit report asto how many affiliated ITI/ITC/trade/units are functioning and how many are not functioning. On verification, the Directorate of Employment & Training, Government of Chhattisgarh submitted a report dated 15 November, 2006 (Annexure R-1-3/E) to the Directorate General of Employment & Training, Government of India stating that petitioner institute has 2 units in Electrician trade and 3 units in Fitter trade. Even if by a mistake it was stated in the notice dated 11th February, 2004 (Annexure - P/3), the petitioner knew very well that the petitioner institute was not granted affiliation for more than 2 units in Electrician trade. The petitioner has committed serious irregularities and illegalities by admitting the students for 4 units. In W.P.(C) No. 3060 of 2009, Shri Bakshi would submit that the process of registration shall start after the decision of the High Court W.P.(C)No.3313of2008.

8. Ms. Singhai, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent No. 4 would submit that by letter dated 14th March, 1995 (Annexure R-4/1), NCVT informed the State Director petitioner institute have been granted affiliation for two units in Electrician trade subject to furnishing of supplementary inspection ..^-T^. 'ff^ i l@al,! \ •\.¥^'f '^%£^.^" 91 report, sufficient tools and equipments. Thereafter, on 29th January, 1997 (Annexure R/-4/2), one more letter was addressed to the State authoritiesstating therein to send the comments on deficiencies of the institutes, if any, and affiliation to one additional unit Electrician trade was granted. NCVT, in its 33 meeting, held on 3 July, 1999, (Annexure R-4/3) clarified that any center having affiliation of two units are permitted to have training of two units in any particulartime. On 27th December, 1999, (Annexure R-4/4) itwas made clear that one unit means 16 trainees but the permissible strength of one unit is 19. An Institute can admit one unit in first year and two units in second year. The maximum number of trainees permitted to be admitted in first year would be restricted to 19 in the first year and 19 again in the second year. Thus, the petitioner was granted affiliation only for two units of Electrician Trade. Admitting any students for two units in the same year was illegal and unauthorized.

9. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.

10. W.P. (C) No.3313 of 2008; on 18th July, 2008 the students admitted to Electrician trade in the year 2006 were permitted to appear in the examination held on 21st July, 2008, however, it was made clearthat the result of the students shall be declared only after permission by this Court. On 17th February, 2009 the State Government was granted time to produce records clarifying asto whether any order contrary to affiliation (notice) dated 11 February, 2004 (Annexure - P/3) was passed or any show cause notice was issued by the State Government to the petitioner. Till date no document has been filed indicating the fact that aftei the notice dated 11 February, 2004 any show cause notice was issued or communication with regard to affiliation of 4 units in the petitioner institute was made. It appears !0 that except notice dated 11th February, 2004 there is no document, which can indicate that the petitioner was granted affiliation for 4 units in Electrician trade. Thus, on the basis of records available, it cannot be held that in the year 2006 the petitioner has affiliation for 4 units in the Electridan trade. The notice dated 11th February, 2004 (Annexure P/3) is not conclusive as affiliation has to be granted by NCVT and there is no record available to establish that the petitioner institute was granted affiliation for more than two units.

11. The letter dated 27th December, 1999 (Annexure - R/4) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, to all the Secretaries, indicate the admission process. If an ITI is affiliated for three units, the permissible strength ofthree units is 19X3 i.e. 57. In case ofthree units, admission process reads as under: "Admission can be in any of the following manner: Institute admits one unit in first year and two i) units in second year. The maximum number of trainees permitted to be admitted in first year would be restricted to 19 and to 38 in the second year. in second year. Institute admits 2 units in first year and one ii) The maximum number of trainees permitted to be admitted in first year would be 38 and 19 in the second year. Institute admits trainees for all three units in iii) in second year. The first year itself and no unit trainees permitted to be maximum number of admitted in first year would be 57 and NIL in the second year."

12. If the petitioner has affiliation for 2 units, the petitioner ought not to have admitted more than 19 students in the year 2006, as the petitioner institute has admitted 19 students for 1 unit in the year

2005. The students who were admitted in 2006 were allowed to complete their course for 2 years and they were further permitted to appear in the examination by order dated 18th July, 2008 of this Court. /• J ^^^«^°%„.. "^. "s! \ "^T.^^ i ¥J '^£^ " ^

13. The Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is equitable anddiscretionary. Thus, the result of the students admitted to Electrician trade in the year 2006 shall be declared.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. and Another vs. V.U. Warrier , observed as under: "26. The matter can be considered from another angle also. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the the Constitution is High Court under Article 226 of equitable and discretionary. The power under that Article can be exerdsed by the High Court "to reach is found". More than fifty years injustice wherever it in Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., before, the Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J, observed (at SCR p. 594) the writs referred to in Article 226 of Constitution are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them. "in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural a justice, jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the fact of the record, andsuch act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice". exercise refuse

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited and others vs. Kamal Swaroop Tandon , observed as (emphasis supplied)" under: , "35. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation is right in submitting that the High Court was exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power under that Article can be exerdsed by the High reach injustice wherever it is found". Court "to

16. The petitioner failed to establish that the petitioner-institute was granted affiliation for more than two units in Electrician trade. As per the formula, since the petitioner-institute has admitted 19 students in 1 2