1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1497 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2011 The Director of Training and Secretary to National Council for Vocational Training, C/o.The Directorate of Employment and Training, New Delhi-110 001. ... Appellant/3rd respondent Vs. 1.S.N.Sevlaraj, Correspondent, M/s.Technical Institute of Engineering & Industrial Training Centre, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari Dist. ... 1st respondent/Petitioner 2.The Commissioner, Directorate of Employment and Training Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. 3.The Regional Joint Director, Employment and Training, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.12.2007, made in W.P.(MD) No.5984 of 2006. Prayer in WP(MD)No.5984 of 2006:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka. No.37339/Kai-Pa.1/04 dated 5.7.06 on the file of the respondent No.1, and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to allow the students of the petitioner Institute to complete their studies and appear for the examinations and publish their results. For Appellant : Mr.K.K.Senthil Velan, Asst. Solicitor General of India For Respondents: Mr.V.Pandi, 2 & 3 Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J) The Appellant/Third Respondent has preferred this Writ Appeal, as against the order, dated 20.12.2007, passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (MD).No.5984 of 2006. 2.The Learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the First Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.5984 of 2006, dated 20.12.2007, has, among the other things, observed that in view of the further development, as mentioned in the additional affidavit of the Petitioner, dated 23.11.2007, improving the infrastructural facilities for the said trade, does not arise at this stage and the students appeared for the examinations also underwent their courses, which were not de-affiliated till date and further, this Court granted permission to the students to appear for the examinations and the students also appeared in the examinations and are awaiting for the results and consequently, directed the respondents 1 & 2 to publish the results of the students of the Petitioner Institute, who appeared in the All India Trade Tests held in July, 2006 and ordered the Writ Petition in the above terms. 3.It is the case of the First Respondent/Petitioner that the First Respondent/Petitioner Institute has obtained permanent affiliation in the year 1983 and is conducting classes in the undermentioned trades: a)Mechanical, b)Motor Vehicle, c)Wiremen, d)Mechanical (Diesel), and e)Draftsman (Civil). A Standing Committee inspected the infrastructural facilities provided for the said trades and de-affiliation proceedings were initiated, against which, the First Respondent/Petitioner filed W.P.No.1495 of 2000. This Court held that in the inspection report submitted by the Committee, it is found that no notice was issued to the First Respondent/ Petitioner and no order of de-affiliation was also passed. Thereafter, 17 Trainees were not permitted to write the All India Trade Tests held from 22.07.2004 and on obtaining orders from this Court, the said Trainees were permitted to take up the tests and their results were also published, pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 26.04.2005. 4.It is not in dispute that eight trainees under the trade "Motor Vehicle" bearing Register No.1631701 to 1631708 and three Trainees in Fitter trade bearing Register Nos.1630101, 1630102 and 1630103 underwent their courses in the First Respondent/Petitioner/Institute from August, 2004 to July, 2006. The Appellant/Third Respondent announced the All India Trade Test that was to be held from 20.07.2006 and even though they were paid the examination fees, they were not issued with Hall Tickets and two among the three of the "Fitter" trade students bearing register Nos.1630101 and 1630102 and one among the "Motor Vehicle" trade bearing Register No.1631701 also applied for writing supplementary tests in the All India Trade Test and paid examination fees. But, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 05.07.2006, the Second Respondent/First Respondent passed the impugned order and refused to permit the "Motor Vehicle" trade students to appear for the All India Trade Tests, commenced from 20.07.2006 on the ground that there was no inspection report. It is the stand of the First Respondent/Petitioner that the Institute remitted the inspection fee on 15.11.2005, but there was no inspection and as such, declining permission to the Trainees to write tests was illegal and accordingly, the writ petition was filed. 5.This Court, on 19.07.2006, while admitting the Writ Petition, in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2006 in W.P.(MD).No.5984 of 2006, allowed the students to appear for the All India Trade Tests, conducted by the Appellant/Third respondent, held from 20.07.2006, subject to further orders in the Writ Petition and the students also appeared for the examinations, but their results were to be published. 6.In the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, it was mentioned that the First Respondent/Petitioner/Institute has not upgraded the facilities under the revised syllabus and no inspection fee was received by the Department and the First Respondent/Petitioner/Institute has not made any infrastructural facilities for the "Motor Vehicle" trade under the revised syllabus and a report to that effect was furnished by the Regional Joint Director, Tirunelveli, on 03.04.2006 and as such, the Trainees of the Institute were found not eligible to appear for the tests. 7.An additional affidavit on the side of the First Respondent/Petitioner, dated 23.11.2007, was filed before the Writ Court to the effect that in the said trade, no further admissions were made, inspection fee was paid on 15.11.2005 and the institution was also closed due to the poor health condition of the Correspondent. The said statement made by the First Respondent/Petitioner in the additional affidavit is not disputed by the learned counsel appeared for the Appellant/Third Respondent and the Respondents 2 & 3 herein. 8.Inasmuch as the further development, as stated in the additional affidavit of the First Respondent/Petitioner, dated 23.11.2007, the question of improving the infrastructural facilities does not arise at this stage. The fact remains that the students, appeared for the examinations, also underwent their courses, which were not de- affiliated till date. Only because of the permission granted by this Court, the students were allowed to appear for the examination and the students were appeared in the examinations and also were awaiting for the results. 9.Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Appellant/Third Respondent informed this Court that the results of the students, who took up the examinations, were already published and that the certificates were also issued to the candidates concerned. 10.In view of the fact that the students, who underwent their courses, have only appeared for the examination, based on the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petition, permitting them to take up the examination, the respondents 2 & 3 were bound to publish the results of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the students of the First Respondent/Petitioner/Institute, who appeared in the All India Trade Tests that took place in July, 2006. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge has rightly issued a direction to the appellant and the respondents 2 & 3 herein to publish the results and to issue certificate to the students within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Only as against the said order, dated 20.07.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(MD).No.5984 of 2006, the appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal, as an aggrieved person, before this Court. 11.At the risk of repetition, it is to be pointed out by this Court that in view of the additional affidavit filed by the First Respondent/Petitioner, dated 23.11.2007, improving the infrastructural facilities of the said Institute does not arise, for the simple reason that the students, who appeared for the examination also underwent their courses, which were not de-affiliated till date and more over, the students concerned were permitted to appear for the examinations and they were waiting for the results and subsequently, the results were also published. 12.On going through the order, dated 20.12.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(MD).No.5984 of 2006, we are of the considered view that the said order does not suffer from any patent error or material irregularity and consequently, we are in complete agreement with the decision taken by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. Resultantly, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 2.The Commissioner, Directorate of Employment and Training Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. 3.The Regional Joint Director, Employment and Training, Tirunelveli. Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.1497 of 2011 Dated:21.12.2011 gcg RJ/9.1.12 4p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/