IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 115 of 2010 Decided on: 11th November, 2011. Neeraj Kumar Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 5: Mr. Ashok Thakur, Central Government Counsel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The appellant is the writ petitioner. In the final trade test for the award of National Trade Certificate, a candidate is permitted to avail only maximum six chances, as per the manual published by the Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. It is the admitted factual position that the examination undertaken by the petitioner in April, 2008 is the seventh chance. In that view of the matter, the writ petition for a 2 direction to publish the result in that seventh attempt was dismissed and hence the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the petitioner had not suppressed anything before the Takniki Shiksha Board and the application of the petitioner having been processed and the petitioner having been permitted to appear in the examination, nobody can thereafter take an objection that the admission to the examination was irregular. We are afraid, the contention cannot be appreciated. For the only reason that the application of the petitioner for appearance in the seventh chance has been processed and the petitioner was permitted to sit in the examination, it will not be a ground available to the petitioner to claim that he was entitled to appear for the seventh time. In case there has been any irregularity in admission, the same cannot be regularized unless and otherwise permissible under the law. In other words, in case the petitioner is not otherwise entitled to appear in more than six chances, merely because there was an irregular admission for the seventh chance by some other agency, that would not entitle the petitioner without any right, either under law or any equity, to claim for declaration of the result as of right. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, points out that the Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi is having 3 powers to relax the condition in appropriate situations and in the said situation, referred to above, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the 5th respondent. In case the Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi has power either for modification of the Manual or for relaxation of the condition in the Manual, it is certainly open to the petitioner to approach the 5th respondent. Therefore, it is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition or judgment in the appeal shall not stand in the way of the appellant-petitioner approaching the 5th respondent- Director Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by way of an appropriate representation, in which case the same shall be duly considered by the Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and appropriate action in accordance with law and justice shall be taken thereon within another two months. 3. The appeal is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Authenticated copy to the parties. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice November 11, 2011 (K) (Justice V.K. Ahuja ), Judge.