High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11-12-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.Nos.6291 and 23542 of 2007andMP No.2 of 2007 in WP 23542 of 2007Bharathiyar Industrial TrainingCentreRep. By its CorrespondentR.S.RoadGudiyattam 632 602,Vellore... Petitioner in both petitions vs1.The Directorate General ofEmployment & Training Sharam Shakti Bhavan Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.2.The Commissioner of Employmentand Training Guindy, Chennai 32.3.The Regional Joint Director Employment and Training Chennai Region, Guindy, Chennai 32... Respondents in WP No.6291/20074.The Commissioner of Employment and Training Guindy, Chennai 32.5.The Joint Director Employment and Training (CTS), Guindy, Chennai 32. .. Respondents in WP No.23542/2007WP No.6291/2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the recordsrelating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.72070/Kai.Pa.4/03 dated 14.12.2005passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondentsto approve the admission of the students in fitter trade for the academicyear 2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP No.23542/2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit thestudents of the petitioner institute admitted in August 2005 to write AllIndia Trade Exams (NCVT) Fitter Trade and to publish the results and issuecertificates of those examinations.For Petitioner: Mr.Vijayanarayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.KamadevanFor Respondents: Mrs.Soundaravalli Sekar Additional Government Pleader for RR2 & 3 inWP 6291/2007 and for RR1 & 2 in WP 23542/2007COMMON ORDERThis order shall govern these two writ petitions in WP Nos.6291 and23542 of 2007. The former has been brought forth seeking a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent and todirect the respondents to approve the admission of the students in fittertrade for the academic year 2005, while the latter is filed seeking a writof mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the students of thepetitioner institute admitted in August 2005, to write All India TradeExams (NCVT) Fitter Trade and to publish the results and issuecertificates of those examinations. 2.The affidavits in support of both the petitions and the counteraffidavit are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel on eitherside.3.It is not in controversy that the petitioner, an IndustrialTraining Institute, established in 1998, was granted approval by theDirector General of Employment and Training, New Delhi, in the year 1999;thereby, it has been conducting the course. According to the petitioner,there was a change of management, and only after the indication of theneed in the correspondence addressed by the management, the authoritieshave arrived at a misconception that the location of the institute hasbeen shifted; but, it is incorrect, and during 2005, when the respondentsrefused to issue the hall tickets to the students, the petitioner filed awrit petition in WP No.22836/2005 seeking permission of this Court toconduct the exams scheduled in 2005, and another writ petition was alsofiled for the publication of results, and pursuant to the orders passedtherein, they were allowed to write examination, and they have alsopassed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.It is the further case of the petitioner that in continuation ofthe proceedings dated 14.12.2005, suitable explanation was also submitted;but, the authorities were not satisfied with the explanation tendered;that while the matter stood thus, there was a direction issued by therespondents, not to admit the students from 2005 onwards; that under thecircumstances, the first writ petition came to be filed in WP No.6291/2007seeking to quash that order; that the second writ petition came to befiled in WP No.23542/2007, since pursuant to the orders of the Court,students were admitted for the two years course, stating that they shouldbe permitted to writ the examination, and further, the respondents shouldbe directed to publish the results; that after the filing of the secondwrit petition, the Court passed an interim order permitting the studentsto write the examination, and now, the results have got to be publishedand the certificates be issued. 5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated theaverments found in the petition and would submit that in the instant case,once de-affiliation has been granted, it was a misconception by therespondents as to the location of the institute as if it was shifted,which was factually incorrect; that though the inspection was proposed andthe readiness and willingness of the management was also intimated, therespondents have not made any inspection; but, on the contrary, it hasfirst directed the petitioner Institute not to admit the students from theyear 2005; that pursuant to the orders of the Court, they were permitted;that now, the students have written the examination; and that while theywrote the exams, there cannot be any impediment for publishing theresults. 6.Relying on Rule 10 of the Appendix XX of the Training Manual forIndustrial Training Institutes and Centres, the learned Senior Counselwould submit that even assuming that there is a de-affiliation, it shouldnot affect the batch of students who are undergoing the training atpresent; and that even if the said rule is given application, consideringthe circumstances, they should be permitted to write the examination, andthe results have got to be published.7.The Court heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on theabove contentions.8.As far as the first writ petition in WP No.6291/2007 was concerned,it was actually to quash the order restraining the petitioner institutefrom admitting the students from 2005 onwards. Pursuant to the orders ofthe Court, a batch of students were admitted in 2005, and they have alsowritten the examination. Under the circumstances, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that no meaningful relief could be granted in thispetition at this stage. Hence, WP No.6291/2007 has got to be disposed ofaccordingly.9.As regards the second writ petition in WP No.23542/2007, it is fora writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the students of thepetitioner institute admitted in August 2005, to write All India TradeExams (NCVT) Fitter Trade and also to publish results thereon and issuecertificates. In the instant case, after the filing of the above writpetition, pursuant to the orders of the Court, a batch of students who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were admitted in 2005, were allowed to write the examination in 2007.Accordingly, they have written, and now, the results have got to bepublished. Now, at this juncture, it would be apt and appropriate toreproduce Rule 10 of the Appendix XX of the Training Manual for IndustrialTraining Institutes and Centres as follows:"10.From the date of the issue of such an order by the StateDirector, the relevant trades/units will stand de-affiliated.However, the existing batch of trainees, if otherwise eligible,should be permitted by the State Director to appear in theensuing All India Trade Test. Further admission of traineesshould be stopped from the next session onwards." 10.From the very reading of the said Rule, it would be quite clearthat even after de-affiliation came into force, the existing batch oftrainees, if otherwise eligible, should be permitted to appear in theensuing All India Trade Test. It could be further added that once they areallowed to appear in the examination, if otherwise eligible, the outcomeof such examination should be made known. Further, it is not the case ofthe respondents that those students were otherwise not eligible. Underthe circumstances, the Court considered the situation and permitted themanagement to admit the students in 2005. That apart, the students werealso allowed to write the examination, and they have written the exams.It is further to be pointed out that further admission of trainees hasbeen stopped by the management. Now, according to the petitioner, aninspection is proposed; but, it has not yet taken place. Under thecircumstances, it would be fit and proper to issue a direction to therespondents to publish the results of the examination in respect of thestudents of 2005 batch, who wrote the examination pursuant to the ordersof the Court, and to issue the certificates. Accordingly, a direction isissued. There is no impediment for the respondents to make necessaryinspection thereon and pass suitable orders as one required under thecircumstances and as the law would also require so. 11.Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected MP is closed.nsv/Sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Directorate General ofEmployment & Training Sharam Shakti Bhavan Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Commissioner of Employmentand Training Guindy, Chennai 32.3.The Regional Joint Director Employment and Training Chennai Region, Guindy, Chennai 32.4.The Joint Director Employment and Training (CTS), Guindy, Chennai 32.+2 ccs to The Government Pleader Sr.No.73300,73301.+1 cc to Patty.B.Jaganathan, Advocate Sr.No.73187.+2 ccs to Mr.S.Kamadevan, Advocate Sr.No.73468,73470.SSK(CO)DCP/18.12WP Nos.6291 and 23542 of 2007