IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.4.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN W.A.Nos.1320 and 1321 of 2007 The Principal VOC Industrial Training Institute rep. by its Correspondent Pattalamman Koil Street VOC Nagar, Chinnmanur Theni District. .. Appellant in WA:1320/2007 (1st Respondent in W.P.No.12347/2000) VOC Industrial Training Institute rep. by its Correspondent Pattalamman Koil Street VOC Nagar, Chinnmanur Theni District. .. Appellant in WA:1321/2007 (Petitioner in W.P.No.15695/2001) Vs. 1. S.Murugan .. 1st respondent in WA:1320/2007 (Petitioner in W.P.No.12347/2000) 2. The Director of Training and Secretary to National Council for Vocational Training Government of India Ministry of Labour D.G.E. & T. Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. 4. The Regional Joint Director of Employment and Training Madurai Region, Madurai District. .. Respondents 2 to 4 in WA.1320/07 and respondents 1 to 3 in WA.1321/07 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Respondents 2 to 4 in W.P.No.12347 of 2000) (Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.15695/2000) PRAYER: Against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.2.2003 made in W.P.Nos.12347 and 15695 of 2000. Writ Petition praying (1) to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to issue the original National Trade Certificate in Electrician Course to the petitioner in (W.P.No.12347 of 2000) (2) Directing the third respondent to issue the certificates for the electrician one unit of 1996 batch students, who sit for the examinations in the year 1998 along with another 1 unit electrician students in pursuance of the order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.10301/98 dated 26.4.99(in W.P.No.15695/2000) For Appellants : Mrs.G.Thilakavathi For Respondents: Mr.Uma Sankar for 1st respondent in W.A.No.1320 of 2007 Mr.K.Elango Assistant Solicitor General for 2nd respondent in W.A.No.1320 of 2007 and 1st respondent in W.A.No.1321 of 2007 Mr.R.Thirugnanam for respondents 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1320 of 2007 and respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.1321 of 2007 JUDGMENT (Delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) Heard Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.K.Elango, learned Assistant Solicitor General, who appears for the second respondent in W.A.No.1320 of 2007 (first respondent in W.A.No.1321 of 2007), apart from Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1320 of 2007 (respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.1321 of 2007) and Mr.Uma Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.A.No.1320 of 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in W.A.No.1320 of 2007. 3. These appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Judge dated 21.2.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.12347 and 15695 of 2000. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions, on the basis that the appellant/institute has admitted students in excess of the approved strength. 4. The appellant/institute has applied for approval to the second respondent for running vocational training institute in the year 1992. It appears that, as per the order of this Court in W.P.No.20978 of 1992, the Standing Committee of the second respondent has inspected the appellant/institute and recommended permanent affiliation of two units in Electrician Trade for the year 1992. As per the said order dated 1.10.1993, it is clear that for the year 1992, two units for Electrician Trade have been approved for the appellant/institute, while in respect of Mechanical (Motor Vehicle) Trade, two units have been approved, stating that one unit should be for the year 1992-1994 and another unit should be for the year 1993- 1995. 5. The dispute relating to the appellant/institute is about Electrician Trade only. On the face of it, it is clear that the two units, which have been permitted to the appellant/institute for the year 1992, have not been divided into 1 + 1 units, stating that this admission shall be done in alternate years. Admittedly, the course is for two years. 6. Again, for the year 1993-1995, by an order dated 5.5.1994, another two units have been approved to the appellant/institute in Electrician Trade, however with a remark subject to providing instructors for Driving and Social Studies subjects. It is also relevant to point out that for the year 1993-1995, the second respondent has recommended one unit in Mechanical (Motor Vehicles) Trade. 7. It is on the basis of the said approval and affiliation granted by the second respondent, it appears that the appellant/institute has admitted 28 students in the year 1992-1994 and all of them appeared for the examination stated to have been conducted by the third respondent, in which 19 students are stated to have passed, to whom certificates have been issued. Likewise, in the year 1993-1995, the appellant/institute has admitted 24 students in Electrician Trade and all of them appeared for the examination and 15 persons have passed, to whom certificates have been issued by the second respondent, except one student. 8. It is based on the said approval, the appellant/ institute appears to have admitted students for the year 1994-1996 and 1995- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1997. As per the list furnished by the second respondent, for the year 1994-1996, 40 students were admitted in Electrician Trade, out of them 39 students have appeared and 36 students have passed, in respect of whom only 18 students have been issued certificates by the second respondent and the certificates of remaining 18 students have been withheld. Likewise, in respect of year 1995-1997, the appellant/institute admitted 36 students, out of whom 31 students have passed and in respect of 19 students certificates were issued and the certificates of remaining 12 students, who have passed, were withheld. 9. Again, in the year 1996-1998, 40 students were admitted in the appellant/institute in Electrician Trade, out of whom 16 students, who have passed, have been issued certificates and 23 students have not been issued certificates. 10. It is seen that, after 1997-1998, permanent affiliation has been granted for two units for the appellant/institute and in respect of the admission thereafter, there is no difficulty. 11. It is also stated that in respect of the students, for whom the second respondent has not issued final certificates, provisional certificates have been issued. 12. The contention raised by Mr.K.Elango, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the second respondent is that the appellant has been granted approval for running two units from the year 1992 onwards, subject to the condition that in each year only one unit of students are admitted, each unit having only 20 students. 13. Mr.K.Elango, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the second respondent would rely upon the circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, dated 24.8.1999, forwarding the minutes of the 33rd Meeting of National Council for Vocational Training held on 3.7.1999. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General, as per the resolution, which has been minuted, a condition has been imposed that whenever affiliation is granted for two units of two year trade, the admission shall be made in alternate years. The operative portion of the resolution, which is relied upon by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, is as follows: "DG/JS apprised the members that affiliation was accorded to ITIs/ITCs in terms of number of units for trades indicated in affiliation order. However, in certain cases it had been noticed that some time the significance of units affiliated was mis-interpreted and some of the it is/ITCs admitted the trainees more than the sanctioned strength. For example if an institute had been granted affiliation for 2 units of two year trade, it means that the institute either admitted two units of trainee in alternate years or one unit in first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ year and second unit in second year. Instead the institutes admitted two units of trainees every year, which was incorrect." 14. It is also true that one of the clauses of the Training Manual for Industrial Training Institutes and Centre makes it clear that the affiliation is a necessary condition and admission shall be done as per the directive of National Council for Vocational Training, which is as follows: "(b) As standardization and quality control is outmost concern in granting permission for opening new ITIs. Therefore State Directors dealing with CTS may prepare two list of ITIs/ITCs as mentioned below. (i) Institute wise list of institute/ trade/units in which affiliation have been secured. (ii) A similar list of institute/ trades/units which have been recommended by the standing committee and submitted to DGE&T for seeking affiliation. In these institutes (trade/ units) trainees can be admitted on the understanding that they will be allowed to appear for NCVT examination subject to affiliation from DGE&T failing which they would be trade tested by SCVT." 15. It is not in dispute that any institute, which makes admission of students beyond the strength affiliated, cannot certainly get an order for permitting the excess students either to write the examination or to have the certificates issued to them. But, on the facts of the case, it is clear that when the order of affiliation was granted to the appellant for the years 1992-1994 and 1993-1995, there is no stipulation that two units of students should be admitted in the alternate year, while it is true that the duration of the course is two years. In such view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the resolution, which has been passed by the National Council for Vocational Training, is binding upon the appellant. That may be true, if such resolution was the basis for granting affiliation to the appellant/institute. The resolution, which is relied upon by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, is of the year 1999, whereas approval was granted to the appellant/ institute in the year 1992-1994 and 1993-1995 and also thereafter. 16. Any condition, which has been imposed subsequently, cannot be deemed to be made applicable to previous years in a retrospective manner, unless such a statute or regulation makes retrospective operation on fact. In the absence of such provision for retrospective application of the resolution, it is not possible to accept that such resolution, which has been relied upon by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, is binding upon the appellant. 17. In fact, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, has relied upon a clarification of the Government of India, which is as follows: "The clarification has been sought by you regarding admission of trainees per year in the institute. You are aware that as per the affiliation procedure, total units in any trade affiliated at the institute should not be more than affiliated units and should remain unchanged at any point of time e.g. if any institute is affiliated for two units, it means the institute should not have more than two units at any point of time. Therefore, the institute should admit either one unit per year and run the institute in two shifts, one unit in each shift. But, in this condition, the institute should admit trainees alternate years only, so that number of units admitted in the institute should remain two at any point of time." 18. While it may be true that the said circular may form part of the scheme as such, on the facts of the present case, the approval has been granted to the appellant/ institute in unequivocal terms for two units, without mentioning that it was for alternate years. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, while deciding the issue. 19. The legal issue, which has been discussed by the learned Judge, that admission of students beyond the sanctioned strength is not permissible, is a well known rule of law, about which there is no dispute. But, on the factual matrix stated above, when the second respondent, which is the authority empowered to grant affiliation, has granted such affiliation without explaining about alternate year of admission of students and especially in the circumstances that permission has been granted to admit two units of students, each unit, admittedly, consisting of 20 students, we are of the view that the appellant has not admitted more than 40 students in any year, as it is seen from the list furnished by the second respondent himself. In fact, in the list furnished by the second respondent, it is stated that for the year 1992-1994, 28 students were admitted by the appellant; for the year 1993-1995, 24 students were admitted; for the year 1994-1996, 40 students were admitted; for the year 1995-1997, 36 students were admitted; and for the year 1996-1998, 40 students were admitted. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has only acted as per the condition of affiliation and has not admitted more than 40 students and it cannot be said that the admission has been made by the appellant/institute beyond the sanctioned strength and therefore, the same has to be held invalid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20. It is also brought to our notice that the first respondent (S.Murugan), who was admitted in the appellant/ institute, has proceeded against the appellant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, on the basis that there is deficiency in service rendered by the appellant/ institute towards him, and the same is pending. We do not propose to express any opinion about the pendency of such case before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and it is for the Forum to decide the same in accordance with law. On the facts and circumstances, which we have enumerated above, we have no hesitation to hold that the admission of students by the appellant/institute is not beyond the sanctioned strength. In such view of the matter, the writ appeals stand allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to issue certificates to the students of the appellant/institute, which are withheld by them, within a period of eight weeks. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.3 of 2007 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sasi To: 1. The Director of Training and Secretary to National Council for Vocational Training Government of India Ministry of Labour D.G.E. & T. Rafi Marg. New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner of Employment and Training, Guindy Chennai-600 032. 3. The Regional Joint Director of Employment and Training Madurai Region, Madurai District. 1 cc To Mr.C.Uma Shankar, Advocate, SR.19539 1 cc To Mr.K.Elango, Advocate, SR.19873 1 cc To Mrs.G.Thilakavathy, Advocate, SR.19712 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.20185 W.A.Nos.1320 and 1321 of 2007 GV(CO) SRA(11/5/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/