CoramThe Honourable Mr v. Commissioner of Employment & Training

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 5-2-2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.21411 of 2004W.P.M.P.Nos.24998 of 2005 & 179 of 2007M/s.Srinivasa I.T.I.,re.by its Principal/CorrespondentS.AnbalaganNo.38, Nethaji Street,Thoraipadi,Vellore - 632 002....PetitionerVs.1.Commissioner of Employment & Training,Chepauk,Chennai - 600 005.2.Regional Joint Director of Training,Govt. I.T.I.Women Campus,Guindy,Chennai - 600 032....RespondentsPrayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom interfering with the right of the students of the petitionerinstitute for the trade course of Electrician and Mechanical MotorVehicle, admitted for the academic year 2002-2004 for the examinationcommencing on 23.7.2004.For Petitioner:Mrs.G.ThilakavathyFor Respondent:Mr.V.Viswanathan,Addl. Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RBy consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as therespondents, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2.Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamusforbearing the respondents from interfering with the rights of thestudents of the petitioner institute admitted in the trades of Electricianand Mechanical Motor Vehicle for the academic years 2002-2004 for theexamination commencing on 23.7.2004.3.Petitioner ITI was established in the year 1995-96 with duerecognition and affiliation for Electrician Trade and Mechanical MotorVehicle Trade. In August, 2003, the respondents, placing reliance on theinspection report, disaffiliated the petitioner institute and stated thatno admission of students for the recognised trade courses of Electricianand Mechanical Motor Vehicle Trade should be made from the academic year2003 onwards till the compliance of the deficiencies as noted in theirinspection report.4.The petitioner institute in strict compliance of the order of thesecond respondent not admitted students to the said Trades for theacademic years 2003-2004. However continued the course for the studentsof the said trades, admitted in the previous academic year 2002-2004.After disaffiliation some of the students withdrew their admission andonly six students underwent the second year course in the petitioner ITIi.e., two students in Electrician Trade and four students in MechanicalMotor Vehicle Trade. Examinations were scheduled to be conducted from23.7.2004 and the petitioner ITI remitted examination fee and requestedthe respondents to issue hall tickets. However hall tickets were notissued and therefore this writ petition was filed.5.Along with the writ petition, petitioner filed a directionpetition to permit the students to sit for the examinations. This Courtby order dated 23.7.2004 granted interim direction subject to the resultof the writ petition. Therefore the students appeared for theexaminations in July, 2004. Now the grievance of the petitioner is thatthe results of the said students are not published and therefore they arenot able to get their Trade Certificates.6.Respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it is statedthat due to the non-availability of infraustructural facilities,petitioner ITI was disaffiliated and the deficiency pointed out were alsonot complied with and therefore the petitioner ITI is not entitled toadmit Trainees for the above Trades in the academic year from August, 2003onwards. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedlythe disaffiliation was with effect from August, 2003 and no student wasadmitted from August, 2003. All that the petitioner seeking is to permitthe students, admitted during academic year 2002-2003, to continue theirsecond year course in the petitioner ITI and complete their courses.Learned counsel also submitted that the disaffiliation order nowherestates that the students admitted already, who were undergoing the secondyear course should be admitted in any other institution and so long as thestudents were not directed to be transferred to any other institution,petitioner is entitled to continue the second year course for the saidstudents since they were admitted during the period in which affiliationwas granted. Hence according to the learned counsel, the petitioner isentitled to get the results of the students published for the examinationsappeared, pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 23.7.2004.8.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that thepetitioner ITI having been disaffiliated from August, 2003, petitioner isnot justified in conducting the second year course for the said studentsand the students ought to have joined in some other affiliated ITI and noindulgence can be shown to the students, who underwent their second yearcourse in the disaffiliated ITI.9.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents in the light of thedisaffiliation order.10.It is not in dispute that the Electrician and Mechanical MotorVehicle Trades were granted permanent affiliation to the petitioner ITIfrom the year 1993-1994 as per the proceedings of the Director ofEmployment and Training, Chepauk, Chennai-5, dated 20.7.1996. Thedisaffiliation order is with effect from August, 2003 and the said ordernowhere states that the already admitted students should be transferred toany other ITI. The proceedings of the second respondent dated 14.7.2003clearly states that the petitioner ITI shall not admit students fromAugust, 2003. The said communication has not taken care of the studentsalready admitted, who were undergoing second year course, when thedisaffiliation order was passed.11.Similar issue arose before the Honourable Supreme Court in thedecision reported in (1987) 2 SCC 445 (Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana)wherein in para 3 it is held as follows,"3. We are of the view that since at the time whenthe petitioners joined the course, it was recognised bythe Government of Haryana and it was on the basis ofthis recognition that the petitioners joined thecourse, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners nowthat though at the time of their joining the course itwas recognized, yet they cannot be given the benefit ofsuch recognition and the certificates obtained by them https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would be futile, because (during the pendency of thecourse it was derecognized by the State Government onJanuary 9, 1985. We would, therefore, allow the appealand direct the State Government to recognize thecertificates obtained by the petitioners and otherssimilarly situate as a result of completing thecertificate course in Shri Hanuman Vayayam PrasarakMandal, Amravati for the purpose of appointment asPhysical Training Instructor in government schools inHaryana. Of course, if any person has joined thecertificate course after January 9, 1985 he would notbe entitled to the benefit of this order and anycertificate obtained by him from the said Institutewould be of no avail. There will be no order as tocosts of the appeal."The said decision is followed by this Court in the decision reported in(1998) 2 MLJ 281 (Jhansi Rani v. The Secretary, The Director of GovernmentExaminations).12.Here in this case also, when the students were admitted during2002, petitioner ITI was having permanent affiliation. The affiliationwas withdrawn only in August, 2003 with a direction not to admit studentsthereafter. The already admitted students cannot be put to prejudice dueto the disaffiliation, ordered subsequently issued. Further there is nodirection to transfer the existing students of the petitioner ITI to anyother ITI. Hence it is inequitable on the part of the respondents to denypublication of results to the students of the petitioner ITI, who appearedfor the examinations pursuant to the interim orders of this Court. 13.Taking note of the admitted facts in this case, the writpetition is allowed with a direction to publish the results of thestudents of the petitioner ITI, who appeared for examinations in July,2004 in the respective trades and issue their mark statements andcertificates within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt ofcopy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.vr/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Commissioner of Employment & Training,Chepauk,Chennai - 600 005.2.The Regional Joint Director of Training,Govt. I.T.I.Women Campus, Guindy,Chennai - 600 032.+ 1 CC To Mr. G.Thilakavathi, Advocate SR NO. 6720W.P.No.21411 of 2004 la[co]gp/13.2.