IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.74 of 2004 1. LAKHOTIA COMPUTER CENTRE AT BEGUSARAI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, VIVEKANAND THAKUR, S/O SHRI RAM SWARATH THAKUR, R/O MOHALLA- MUNGERIGANJ, BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. 2. VIVEKANAND THAKUR, S/O SHRI RAM SWARATH THAKUR, DIRECTOR, LAKHOTIA COMPUTER CENTRE, BEGUSARAI BRANCH, R/O MOHALLA-MUNGERIGANJ, BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI. 3. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr.Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv., Mrs.Sangeeta Sharma, Adv. and Mr.Rakesh Chandra, Adv. For Respondents : Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GP-I. ----------- 5 19.07.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and AC to GP-I for the respondents. Petitioner no. 1, Lakhotia Computer Centre, is a Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institute’) running in the town of Begusarai imparting training of computer to the students who desire to get the training on payment of requisite charges. State Government came up with a scheme known as TRYCEM to provide training of computer to Scheduled Caste students. For 2 imparting such training, State Government chose the Institute also as one of the centers. Under this scheme 50 students of Scheduled Castes were to be assigned to the Institute by the Government. For each student a sum of Rs.400/- per month was to be paid to the Institute, out of which, the Institute was to pay 250/- per month to the respective students. The students who were assigned from other districts were to be paid Rs. 350/-. It appears that in the year 2002, 50 students were assigned to the Institute for one year training. On completion of training, examination was held by the NIC in which those 50 students had to appear. Out of 50 students, only 9 passed. Since the result was unsatisfactory, the Institute was directed to impart further training to the rest 41 students. Accordingly, the Institute imparted training to the said 41 students and submitted the training completion report. Those 41 students were again subjected to examination by the NIC on 15.10.2003. However, out of these 41 students, only 21 students appeared and 20 students did not appear in the examination. Out of those 21 3 who appeared, only 6 students passed. Thus, inspite of training imparted by the Institute, only 15 students out of 50 students passed in the examination. Accordingly, the District welfare Officer issued a letter dated 08.11.2003, as contained in Annexure-1, by which the Branch Manager of the Institute was informed that since only 15 students had passed the examination, petitioner was entitled for payment of stipend in respect of those 15 students only. It was mentioned in the letter that the stipend in respect of first batch of students which the petitioner had received was in excess and the Institute was required to refund the excess amount of Rs.18,000/-. A reminder to the said letter was also issued by the District Welfare Officer vide his letter dated 05.12.2003, as contained in Annexure-2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount has been realized from the Institute under the threat and coercion. He submits that the Institute was assigned the job of imparting training only to the said students. It was not the 4 responsibility of the Institute to see that the students passed the examination. He submits that it depends on the grasping capacity of the students whether they acquired sufficient training so as to pass the examination held by the NIC, or not. He submits that out of 50 students, many of them were not serious to acquire the training and proficiency in the computer, and inspite of best efforts of the Institute, they did not acquire proficiency in knowledge and operation of the computer so as to pass the examination. He submits that, if the students did not acquire proficiency in computer, the Institute could not be held responsible for that and, therefore, the stipend, which was paid in respect of those students also who did not pass the examination, could not be deducted from the payments made to the petitioner. In this connection, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to a letter of the District Welfare Officer dated 2.4.2003, as contained in Annexure-9, addressed to the Branch Manager of the Institute, to show that on inspection, the District Welfare Officer had found that 5 the attendance of the students was 70 to 75% and on enquiry the District Welfare Officer was informed that only 25 to 30% students were serious in getting the training and were putting-in hard labour to get the knowledge of computer. He submits that this itself shows that many of students assigned by the respondents were not serious in getting the training, responsibility of which cannot be saddled on the Institute. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. It is stated in the counter affidavit that majority of the students had not passed the examination held by the NIC which shows that the Institute had not imparted training in proper manner. Therefore, it was decided that the Institute was not entitled for the stipend paid to it in respect of those students who did not pass the examination. This Court is unable to accept the stand taken by the respondents in the matter. There is nothing on record to show that payment of stipend in respect of the students assigned by the respondents to the Institute was in any way made conditional to their 6 passing the examination held by the NIC. Apparently, the Institute was assigned only to impart training to the students. The Institute conducted the course and the students were given opportunity to attend the same and acquire the training of computer. If the students were not serious in getting the training, the Institute cannot be blamed for the same. It is common knowledge that in any educational institution or training institute the grasping capacity and the seriousness of the students joining therein varies. No institute or institution can guarantee cent percent result. But that cannot be taken as a ground for finding fault in the training/teaching imparted by the institute or institution. It was never made clear in black and white that the Institute was entitled for stipend of only those students who ultimately passed in the examination held by the NIC. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny entitlement of the Institute for stipend in respect of those students also who were assigned to the Institute for training but did not pass the examination. It is not the case of the respondents that out of 50 7 students assigned by them to the Institute some of them or majority of them did not join the training at all. Therefore, only on the basis that majority of the students did not pass in the examination, it cannot be held that the Institute did not provide proper training to the students. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any justification in the stand taken by the District Welfare Officer as evident from impugned Annexures-1 and 2. The said Annexures are, therefore, quashed. The respondents are directed to refund Rs.18,000/- deducted from the amount received by the Institute within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If any further amount becomes due to the Institute on this count, the same should also be paid to the Institute within the same period. It is made clear that if the respondents find that some of the students assigned to the Institute never reported to the Institute from day one, the respondents will be at liberty to deduct the stipend in respect of those students from the payments 8 made to the Institute. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)