Letters Patent Appeal No.127 OF 2006 ---- In the matter of an appeal under Appendix E, Clause 10 of the Patna High Court Rules. ---- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INDIA EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI. 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA-800 015. 3. SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, EXAMINATION CONTROLLER DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, DIGHA GHAT, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR B.K. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RAJIV NAGAR, PATNA. …APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS Versus 1. BRAJESH YADAV, SON OF SHRI GHANSHYAM YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAGALPURA , P.O. SHOBHNATHPUR, P.S. KAHALGAON. 2. SURAJ SHEKHAR, SON OF SHRI JAY RAM PRASAD RESIDENT OF MAHABIR ASTHAN, SOUTH MANDIRI, DISTRICT PATNA. …RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL *** S. K. Katriar & K.K.Mandal,JJ. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 20.9.2005, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.10328 of 2002 (Brajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the writ petition preferred by the two respondents herein, has been allowed and the appellants herein have been directed to issue the original certificates of the diploma course undertaken by them. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the appeal may be indicated. Respondent no.1 herein was - 2 - admitted to the Vocational Fitter and Electronics Training course under the Craftsman Training Scheme of the Govt. of India at B.K. Institute of Technology, Patna, entirely run by the State Government. Respondent no.1 herein belonged to 1994-1996 batch, and had appeared at the examination held in the moth of July,1997. Respondent no.2 herein belonged to 1990-1992 batch, and had appeared at the examination held in July,1992. Both were successful in their respective examinations. The authorities issued provisional certificates to them, but the original certificates have been withheld leading to CWJC No.10328 of 2002, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 3. While assailing the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal is confined to that part of the order whereby relief has been granted to respondent no.2. In his submission, the Institute where respondent no.2 pursued his vocational course was not recognized for the course 1990-1992, and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in granting relief to respondent no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the Institute in question is entirely of the Bihar Government. The central inspecting team had conducted inspection of the Institute on 15.7.1991, and had recommended grant of - 3 - affiliation subject to removal of certain defects which were ultimately rectified by the Institution. The Central Government had passed the final order in 1993, granting affiliation to the Institute. We wish to emphasize that the Institute belongs to the Govt. of Bihar, and is not in the category of a fake, non-existent, or ill- equipped Private Institute. Secondly, the inspection report was submitted on 15.7.1991, and examination had taken place in July, 1992. These factors surely operate in favour of respondent no.2. 6. To this has to be added the important circumstance on record that one Sanjay Kumar had pursued the course for the same batch, i.e., 1990-1992, had appeared at the same examination held in July 1992, and the original certificate was issued to him, a photo copy of which is marked as Annexure-3/A to the writ proceeding. The learned Single Judge has considered it to be an important circumstance to grant relief to respondent no.2 herein. Learned counsel for the appellants has not put forward even semblance of argument as to why original certificate was issued to Sanjay Kumar, and has been denied to respondent no.2, a similarly circumstanced student. We, therefore, do not find any justification for this appeal. We consider it to be a frivolous appeal. Because of the mindless action of the appellants, respondent no.2 has been deprived of employment opportunity so far, and he could not get the benefit of his qualification. It is undoubtedly a highly arbitrary action, preferring the present appeal and adding more than four years to the delay, and calls for compensation to respondent no.2. - 4 - 7 In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10 (ten) lacs which shall be paid to respondent no.2 within a period of two months from today, failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 9% from today till the date of payment. The same shall be shared by the Union of India and the Bihar Government in equal measure. ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal ) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 17th day of December, 2009 HR/NAFR