The PrincipalVOC Industrial Training Institute v. S.Murugan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.4.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANW.A.Nos.1320 and 1321 of 2007The PrincipalVOC Industrial Training Instituterep. by its CorrespondentPattalamman Koil StreetVOC Nagar, ChinnmanurTheni District... Appellantin WA:1320/2007(1st Respondent in W.P.No.12347/2000)VOC Industrial Training Instituterep. by its CorrespondentPattalamman Koil StreetVOC Nagar, ChinnmanurTheni District... Appellantin WA:1321/2007(Petitioner in W.P.No.15695/2001)Vs.1. S.Murugan.. 1st respondent in WA:1320/2007(Petitioner in W.P.No.12347/2000) 2. The Director of Training and Secretary to National Council for Vocational Training Government of India Ministry of Labour D.G.E. & T. Rafi Marg, New Delhi.3. The Commissioner of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.4. The Regional Joint Director of Employment and Training Madurai Region, Madurai District... Respondents 2 to 4 in WA.1320/07and respondents1 to 3 in WA.1321/07 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Respondents 2 to 4 in W.P.No.12347 of 2000) (Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.15695/2000)PRAYER: Against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated21.2.2003 made in W.P.Nos.12347 and 15695 of 2000.Writ Petition praying (1) to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing thesecond respondent to issue the original National Trade Certificate inElectrician Course to the petitioner in (W.P.No.12347 of 2000)(2)Directing the third respondent to issue the certificates for theelectrician one unit of 1996 batch students, who sit for theexaminations in the year 1998 along with another 1 unit electricianstudents in pursuance of the order of this Hon'ble Court inW.P.No.10301/98 dated 26.4.99(in W.P.No.15695/2000)For Appellants:Mrs.G.ThilakavathiFor Respondents:Mr.Uma Sankarfor 1st respondent in W.A.No.1320 of 2007Mr.K.ElangoAssistant Solicitor Generalfor 2nd respondentin W.A.No.1320 of 2007and 1st respondent in W.A.No.1321 of 2007Mr.R.Thirugnanamfor respondents 3 and 4in W.A.No.1320 of 2007and respondents 2 and 3in W.A.No.1321 of 2007JUDGMENT(Delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)Heard Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel for the appellants andMr.K.Elango, learned Assistant Solicitor General, who appears for thesecond respondent in W.A.No.1320 of 2007 (first respondent inW.A.No.1321 of 2007), apart from Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1320of 2007 (respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.1321 of 2007) and Mr.UmaShankar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent inW.A.No.1320 of 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to asper their rank in W.A.No.1320 of 2007.3. These appeals are directed against the common order of thelearned Judge dated 21.2.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.12347 and 15695 of2000. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissedthe writ petitions, on the basis that the appellant/institute hasadmitted students in excess of the approved strength.4. The appellant/institute has applied for approval to the secondrespondent for running vocational training institute in the year1992. It appears that, as per the order of this Court inW.P.No.20978 of 1992, the Standing Committee of the second respondenthas inspected the appellant/institute and recommended permanentaffiliation of two units in Electrician Trade for the year 1992. Asper the said order dated 1.10.1993, it is clear that for the year1992, two units for Electrician Trade have been approved for theappellant/institute, while in respect of Mechanical (Motor Vehicle)Trade, two units have been approved, stating that one unit should befor the year 1992-1994 and another unit should be for the year 1993-1995.5. The dispute relating to the appellant/institute is aboutElectrician Trade only. On the face of it, it is clear that the twounits, which have been permitted to the appellant/institute for theyear 1992, have not been divided into 1 + 1 units, stating that thisadmission shall be done in alternate years. Admittedly, the courseis for two years. 6. Again, for the year 1993-1995, by an order dated 5.5.1994,another two units have been approved to the appellant/institute inElectrician Trade, however with a remark subject to providinginstructors for Driving and Social Studies subjects. It is alsorelevant to point out that for the year 1993-1995, the secondrespondent has recommended one unit in Mechanical (Motor Vehicles)Trade.7. It is on the basis of the said approval and affiliationgranted by the second respondent, it appears that theappellant/institute has admitted 28 students in the year 1992-1994and all of them appeared for the examination stated to have beenconducted by the third respondent, in which 19 students are stated tohave passed, to whom certificates have been issued. Likewise, in theyear 1993-1995, the appellant/institute has admitted 24 students inElectrician Trade and all of them appeared for the examination and 15persons have passed, to whom certificates have been issued by thesecond respondent, except one student. 8. It is based on the said approval, the appellant/ instituteappears to have admitted students for the year 1994-1996 and 1995- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1997. As per the list furnished by the second respondent, for theyear 1994-1996, 40 students were admitted in Electrician Trade, outof them 39 students have appeared and 36 students have passed, inrespect of whom only 18 students have been issued certificates by thesecond respondent and the certificates of remaining 18 students havebeen withheld. Likewise, in respect of year 1995-1997, theappellant/institute admitted 36 students, out of whom 31 studentshave passed and in respect of 19 students certificates were issuedand the certificates of remaining 12 students, who have passed, werewithheld.9. Again, in the year 1996-1998, 40 students were admitted in theappellant/institute in Electrician Trade, out of whom 16 students,who have passed, have been issued certificates and 23 students havenot been issued certificates.10. It is seen that, after 1997-1998, permanent affiliation hasbeen granted for two units for the appellant/institute and in respectof the admission thereafter, there is no difficulty.11. It is also stated that in respect of the students, for whomthe second respondent has not issued final certificates, provisionalcertificates have been issued.12. The contention raised by Mr.K.Elango, learned AssistantSolicitor General appearing for the second respondent is that theappellant has been granted approval for running two units from theyear 1992 onwards, subject to the condition that in each year onlyone unit of students are admitted, each unit having only 20 students.13. Mr.K.Elango, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearingfor the second respondent would rely upon the circular issued by theGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, dated 24.8.1999, forwardingthe minutes of the 33rd Meeting of National Council for VocationalTraining held on 3.7.1999. According to the learned AssistantSolicitor General, as per the resolution, which has been minuted, acondition has been imposed that whenever affiliation is granted fortwo units of two year trade, the admission shall be made in alternateyears. The operative portion of the resolution, which is relied uponby the learned Assistant Solicitor General, is as follows:"DG/JS apprised the members that affiliation wasaccorded to ITIs/ITCs in terms of number of units fortrades indicated in affiliation order. However, incertain cases it had been noticed that some time thesignificance of units affiliated was mis-interpreted andsome of the it is/ITCs admitted the trainees more thanthe sanctioned strength. For example if an institutehad been granted affiliation for 2 units of two yeartrade, it means that the institute either admitted twounits of trainee in alternate years or one unit in first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ year and second unit in second year. Instead theinstitutes admitted two units of trainees every year,which was incorrect."14. It is also true that one of the clauses of the TrainingManual for Industrial Training Institutes and Centre makes it clearthat the affiliation is a necessary condition and admission shall bedone as per the directive of National Council for VocationalTraining, which is as follows:"(b) As standardization and quality control is outmostconcern in granting permission for opening new ITIs.Therefore State Directors dealing with CTS may preparetwo list of ITIs/ITCs as mentioned below.(i) Institute wise list of institute/ trade/unitsin which affiliation have been secured.(ii) A similar list of institute/ trades/unitswhich have been recommended by the standingcommittee and submitted to DGE&T for seekingaffiliation. In these institutes (trade/ units)trainees can be admitted on the understandingthat they will be allowed to appear for NCVTexamination subject to affiliation from DGE&Tfailing which they would be trade tested by SCVT."15. It is not in dispute that any institute, which makesadmission of students beyond the strength affiliated, cannotcertainly get an order for permitting the excess students either towrite the examination or to have the certificates issued to them.But, on the facts of the case, it is clear that when the order ofaffiliation was granted to the appellant for the years 1992-1994 and1993-1995, there is no stipulation that two units of students shouldbe admitted in the alternate year, while it is true that the durationof the course is two years. In such view of the matter, it is notpossible to accept the contention of the learned Assistant SolicitorGeneral that the resolution, which has been passed by the NationalCouncil for Vocational Training, is binding upon the appellant. Thatmay be true, if such resolution was the basis for grantingaffiliation to the appellant/institute. The resolution, which isrelied upon by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, is of theyear 1999, whereas approval was granted to the appellant/ institutein the year 1992-1994 and 1993-1995 and also thereafter.16. Any condition, which has been imposed subsequently, cannot bedeemed to be made applicable to previous years in a retrospectivemanner, unless such a statute or regulation makes retrospectiveoperation on fact. In the absence of such provision forretrospective application of the resolution, it is not possible toaccept that such resolution, which has been relied upon by thelearned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, is binding upon the appellant.17. In fact, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writpetitions, has relied upon a clarification of the Government ofIndia, which is as follows:"The clarification has been sought by you regardingadmission of trainees per year in the institute. Youare aware that as per the affiliation procedure, totalunits in any trade affiliated at the institute shouldnot be more than affiliated units and should remainunchanged at any point of time e.g. if any institute isaffiliated for two units, it means the institute shouldnot have more than two units at any point of time.Therefore, the institute should admit either one unitper year and run the institute in two shifts, one unitin each shift. But, in this condition, the instituteshould admit trainees alternate years only, so thatnumber of units admitted in the institute should remaintwo at any point of time."18. While it may be true that the said circular may form part ofthe scheme as such, on the facts of the present case, the approvalhas been granted to the appellant/ institute in unequivocal terms fortwo units, without mentioning that it was for alternate years. Thisaspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, whiledeciding the issue.19. The legal issue, which has been discussed by the learnedJudge, that admission of students beyond the sanctioned strength isnot permissible, is a well known rule of law, about which there is nodispute. But, on the factual matrix stated above, when the secondrespondent, which is the authority empowered to grant affiliation,has granted such affiliation without explaining about alternate yearof admission of students and especially in the circumstances thatpermission has been granted to admit two units of students, eachunit, admittedly, consisting of 20 students, we are of the view thatthe appellant has not admitted more than 40 students in any year, asit is seen from the list furnished by the second respondent himself.In fact, in the list furnished by the second respondent, it is statedthat for the year 1992-1994, 28 students were admitted by theappellant; for the year 1993-1995, 24 students were admitted; for theyear 1994-1996, 40 students were admitted; for the year 1995-1997, 36students were admitted; and for the year 1996-1998, 40 students wereadmitted. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has only actedas per the condition of affiliation and has not admitted more than 40students and it cannot be said that the admission has been made bythe appellant/institute beyond the sanctioned strength and therefore,the same has to be held invalid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. It is also brought to our notice that the first respondent(S.Murugan), who was admitted in the appellant/ institute, hasproceeded against the appellant before the State Consumer DisputesRedressal Forum, on the basis that there is deficiency in servicerendered by the appellant/ institute towards him, and the same ispending. We do not propose to express any opinion about the pendencyof such case before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum andit is for the Forum to decide the same in accordance with law.On the facts and circumstances, which we have enumerated above,we have no hesitation to hold that the admission of students by theappellant/institute is not beyond the sanctioned strength. In suchview of the matter, the writ appeals stand allowed and the order ofthe learned Single Judge is set aside with a direction to the secondrespondent to issue certificates to the students of theappellant/institute, which are withheld by them, within a period ofeight weeks. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.3 of 2007 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsasiTo:1. The Director of Training and Secretary to National Council for Vocational Training Government of India Ministry of Labour D.G.E. & T. Rafi Marg. New Delhi.2. The Commissioner of Employment and Training, Guindy Chennai-600 032.3. The Regional Joint Director of Employment and Training Madurai Region, Madurai District.1 cc To Mr.C.Uma Shankar, Advocate, SR.195391 cc To Mr.K.Elango, Advocate, SR.198731 cc To Mrs.G.Thilakavathy, Advocate, SR.197121 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.20185W.A.Nos.1320 and 1321 of 2007GV(CO)SRA(11/5/2009)