IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33259 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ROBIN M.SIVARAM, RESIDING AT MUTHUPALACKAL VEEDU, KOOVAKANDAM PO, POOMALA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. BIBIN GOPI, RESIDING AT ENJAPLACKAL VEEDU, PATHIPPALLY.PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. SREELESH O.B, RESIDING AT OLIYARACKAL VEEDU, DEVARUPARA.P.O, POOCHAPRA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. SANEESH P.M, RESIDING AT PERIYATHU VEEDU PATHIPPALLY.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. NAUSHAD.P.A, RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, KUDAYANNOOR.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. DEEPU JOSEPH, RESIDING AT NELLICKA THAZHATHU VEEDU, ARAKULAM.P.O, MOOLAMATTAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. JAYESH.T.I, RESIDING AT VARIKKAPLACKAL VEEDU, KARIPPILANGADU.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 8. SANAL P.K, RESIDING AT PADATHIL VEEDU, PERINGASSERI.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. /2/ 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO SCHEDULED CASTE/TRIBE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, THE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, IDUKKI. 5. THE TRAINING SUPERINTENDENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, PUTHADAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the prospectus issued by the fifth respondent during the year 2006. Ext.P2. True copy of the receipt for payment of the examination fee dated nil. Ext.P3 True copy f the representation submitted by the petitioners to the Hon'ble Minister dated nil Ext.P4. True copy of the letter of affiliation issued by the first respondent dated 12.1.2006 Ext.P5. True copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 19.7.2008. Ext.P6. True copy of the letter issued by the third respondent to the 4th respondent dated 22.8.2008. // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.33259 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Prayers in this writ petition are to quash Ext.P6 and to direct the respondents to honour the commitment made in Ext.P5 and to take necessary steps to enable the petitioners to appear for NCVT supplementary examination. 2. Facts of the case are that, by Ext.P4 the first respondent granted affiliation to various Industrial Training Centers, including the Government ITC at Nadukani in Idukki District, with effect from August, 2005. The order granting affiliation indicates that the supplementary inspection report should be submitted for procurement of electrical machine, trainer etc; within 3 months, failing which the affiliation will stand withdrawn. Although Ext.P4 order is dated 12th January, 2006, even going by the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, they have WP(c).No.33259/08 :2: not so far complied with the conditions, subject to which affiliation was granted by Ext.P4. Therefore on the expiry of the period mentioned in Ext.P4, the affiliation granted stands withdrawn. Despite this, pursuant to Ext. P1 prospectus for the year 2006, the students were admitted to the ITC and petitioners are some of them. On the strength of their admission, they underwent classes and completed their course, having a duration of 2 years. However, hall tickets were not issued for examination and that lead to agitation by the students. Finally, Ext.P6 was issued by the 3rd respondent informing that the petitioners will be permitted to appear for the SCVT examination to be held in September, 2008. It is at this stage, this writ petition has been filed with the prayers mentioned above. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 3. From the first respondent's counter affidavit, they have taken the stand that the ITC in question does not enjoy their affiliation. It is stated that by Ext.P4, affiliation was granted subject to certain conditions and as those conditions were not WP(c).No.33259/08 :3: satisfied, the affiliation was withdrawn. It is stated that students who have completed the course in institutes which are not affiliated are not liable to be permitted to appear for the NCVT examination. They are also referring to Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) judgments rendered by this court, where reliefs sought for, similar to one sought for in this writ petition, were declined by this court. 4. The 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit, offers several justifications for its inability to satisfy the conditions of affiliation within time. The affidavit proceeds to state that the 3rd respondent has done everything possible and that steps are being taken for satisfying the conditions of Ext.P4. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the best they can do was to have permitted the students to appear for the SCVT examination and that they have offered such a chance by Ext.P6. It is stated that some students have availed of the opportunity so extended. 5. Facts are therefore clear that the institute in question does not enjoy affiliation from the first respondent. If the WP(c).No.33259/08 :4: institute does not enjoy affiliation, there is no question of NCVT being liable to allow the petitioners to appear for the examination. This court also will not be justified in requiring the NCVT to permit the petitioners to appear for the examination. This position seems to be clear going by Ext.R1 (b) and R1(c) judgments referred to above. Thus the prayer for directing the respondents to take necessary steps for permitting the petitioners to appear for the NCVT examination cannot be granted. 6. If that be so, as at present, although the 3rd respondent is guilty of admitting the students despite the institute having lost affiliation, I do not think it advantageous to the petitioners to quash Ext.P6. As otherwise, even those who are interested to appear for the SCVT examination will be loosing such an opportunity. In the circumstances, although this court cannot approve the conduct of the 3rd respondent in admitting the students, the reliefs sought for cannot be granted. WP(c).No.33259/08 :5: 7. Counsel for the petitioner then contended that the 3rd respondent is liable to make good the damages suffered by them. I do not think it proper for a writ court to entertain a plea for compensation. Therefore, if at all the petitioners have a claim for damages, the course open to the petitioners is to approach the regular civil court by filing a suit. Due to the misleading prospectus published and the erroneous admission that was granted, the petitioners have lost minimum 2 years of their youth. This is only on account of the irresponsible conduct of the 3rd respondent, for which, the State alone is answerable. Therefore, I direct the 3rd respondent to pay costs of Rs.2500/- to each of the petitioners within 2 months. Subject to above, leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners for realizing the damages, if any, the writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.33259/08 :6: