Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 1226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN, J.
The Correspondent, M/s.Kamatchi Industrial Training Institute, Kancheepuram - Appellant
Versus
The Director General, Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment Training, New Delhi and Ors - Respondent
W.P. Nos.18518, 18519, 20753, 20754 of 2015 & 2434 of 2017 and M.P. Nos.1,1,1,1 of 2015 & W.M.P.No.2416 of 2017
Decided On : 11-06-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms.G.Thilagavathy Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Gopinath
For the Respondent:Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao SCGSC, Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.Inbanathan Additional Government Pleader
Headnote:
Industrial Training Institutes - Eligibility criteria of trainees - Irregularity in admitting students - Admitted students beyond cut off date - Whether candidates had indeed attended classes all through years - Petitioner association and some of individuals who are part of association of Tamilnadu Private Industrial Training Institutes Association. They have challenged identical impugned orders passed by 3rd respondent wherein it has been stated that petitioner association and Industrial Training Institutes had admitted the students beyond cut off date and that there was large scale irregularity in admitting students, by these institutions. They have been refrained from declaring results of students who appeared in examinations conducted by 2nd respondent from their Industrial Training Institutes - Held, There is no justification in not releasing results of trainee. The results would show whether candidates had indeed attended classes all through years - Guidelines/circulars issued by 1st respondent also provides for consequences on institutions for not maintaining the records, or where it is found lacking in any aspect. Therefore, appropriate actions can be taken against the respective petitioner for their failure to maintain appropriate records. However, it cannot be used as a tool to deny candidates/trainees who have undergone training and have appeared in exams way back in 2014 - Results of candidates who appeared in exams cannot be withheld by 2nd and 3rd respondent notwithstanding fact that respective petitioner Industrial Training Institutes had miserably failed to establish that these candidates were admitted in time and/or had undergone practical training for a period of two years with minimum 80% attendance - Writ petitions allowed
ORDER :
1. By this common order, all these writ petitions are being disposed of.
2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner association and some of the individuals who are part of the association of Tamilnadu Private Industrial Training Institutes Association. They have challenged the identical impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent wherein it has been stated that the petitioner association and the Industrial Training Institutes had admitted the students beyond the cut off date and that there was large scale irregularity in admitting the students, by these institutions. They have been refrained from declaring the results of the students who appeared in the examinations conducted by the 2nd respondent from their Industrial Training Institutes.
3. The impugned orders have been passed based on the representation of the petitioner association. Earlier, a common order was passed in W.P.Nos.1702, 1724 & 973 of 2015 on dated 27.02.2015. By the aforesaid order, these writ petitions were disposed with the following observations:-
“8. Thus, it is seen that the dispute is whether the candidates underwent the training for the full period and this has to be established by the petitioners' Institutions by producing sufficient records. Since the records in respect of the Institutions in the Southern Region are in the custody of the third respondent, the petitioners should be afforded an opportunity to appear before the third respondent and demonstrate from the records in the possession of the third respondent as well as other records, which are in their custody and establish that the candidates of the respective Institutions underwent the training for the full period. In respect of Institutions where records not taken by the third respondent Department, those Institutions also should produce records before the third respondent and establish that the candidates were imparted training for the full period for the session 2012-2014. If the petitioner Institutions are able to establish that the disputed trainees had completed the training satisfactorily as per the norms prescribed, then it is open to the third respondent to consider the same and pass orders for publication of results without further loss of time. However, in the event there is no satisfactory explanation, then it is open to the third respondent to pass a speaking order as to why the candidates' result cannot be published.
9. In the light of the above, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, by directing the petitioners' Institutions to appear before the third respondent along with the records in their custody and the third respondent shall afford an opportunity to the petitioners' Institutions to establish from the records in their possession and the records which were seized by the officials of the third respondent that the disputed trainees had completed the training satisfactorily as per the norms prescribed.
10. As stated above, if the petitioners Institutions are able to satisfy that the disputed trainees had completed the training satisfactorily as per the norms prescribed, then it is open to the third respondent to pass orders for publication of results without further delay. However in cases where, the Institutions are unable to satisfactorily explain is that the disputed trainees had completed the full training period, the third respondent shall pass a speaking order assigning reasons as to why the results of those disputed trainees cannot be published. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
4. Mrs.Auxilia Peter, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.2434 of 2017 submits that the writ petition is maintainable in response to a preliminary objection raised by Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned couns
