Karnataka High Court
Jagadish B vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.19048/2015 (Edn)
BETWEEN:
Jagadish.B.
Aged about 26 years,
Son of Basavaraj,
R/a.Palanji Estate,
Kanangadu Post, K.Chettalli,
Somavarpet Taluk,
Kodagu District. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.Manohar.N., Adv.,)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Education,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Department of Employment
& Training,
Govt. Industrial Training Institute,
NR Mohalla, Mysuru - 07.
Rep. by its Secretary.
3. The Principal,
Govt. Industrial Training Institute,
NR Mohalla, Mysuru - 07. ...Respondents
2
(By Sri.I.Tharanath Poojaary, AGA for R1 to R3)
******
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 17.6.2014 (Annx-G) as illegal and unjust and direct
the respondents to permit the petitioner to take the
examination or supplementary examination, which is to be
held in the month of June - July 2015 for ITI-two years
training course.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.6.2014 impugned at Annexure-'G' to the writ petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit him to take the examination or supplementary examination for ITI-two years training course.
2. The petitioner had joined the third respondent
- Institution for the two years ITI training course. The 3 said course is guided by the regulations among which one of the requirement was also that the trainee should possess 75% attendance to qualify himself to appear for the examination. The petitioner contends that while he was undergoing the training, he had met with an accident and as such, was unable to attend the classes from 5.5.2014. Reference is made to the medical certificate which is produced along with the petition. However, this aspect could not be brought to the notice of the third respondent. The petitioner further contends that though the third respondent -College is stated to have issued a letter dated 6.6.2014 calling upon the petitioner to rejoin the course, the same had not been received by the petitioner and the action taken by the third respondent came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 17.6.2014, when the petitioner was terminated from the course for remaining absent. It is in that view, the petitioner has assailed the order contending that firstly the third respondent has no authority to terminate the petitioner from the course but and can only recommend 4 the action to the authority concerned. It is further contended that even otherwise, the regulation provides for condoning the shortage of attendance in appropriate cases and in that light, if the case of the petitioner is considered, he be granted an opportunity to appear for the examination.
3. The respondents have filed their objection statement seeking to sustain their action. Reliance is placed on the training manual for ITI course wherein the compulsory attendance for trainees is provided for and action that could be taken in respect of unauthorized absentees is also referred. It is further contended that the regulations provide that a candidate should have minimum 75% attendance and the attendance sheet relating to the petitioner is relied at Annexure-'R3' to point out that he has only 62.75% attendance and therefore, does not qualify to appear for the examination and as such, action has been taken to terminate him from the course. 5
4. In the light of the contentions, firstly as noticed from the regulations, it is clear that in case of a situation arising that a trainee is to be terminated from the course, it is not for the Principal of the College - third respondent to do so but same is to be referred to the second respondent who has to take action thereafter. Though this is one aspect of the matter, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, clause 19 of the training manual wherein the minimum compulsory attendance for trainees is provided, a provision is also made to consider cases where the absence is beyond the control of the trainee. In such cases, the authorities have discretion to condone the shortage of attendance and permit the trainee to continue the course or to appear for the examination.
5. If that is the position, the course as adopted by the third respondent to terminate the petitioner from training through communication dated 17.6.2014 even without referring to all these aspects of the matter would 6 not be justified. On the other hand, while considering as to whether the absence from the training by the petitioner was beyond his control, the documents relied on by the petitioner to indicate that he had met with an accident would require consideration by the second respondent and thereafter, appropriate orders are required to be passed. On such consideration, if it is found that the absence was beyond the control of the petitioner and it was a fact that he had met with an accident, the shortage of attendance is to be condoned and an opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner to appear for the examination.
6. To enable such consideration, the order dated 17.6.2014 is quashed. The petitioner shall now file a representation enclosing all documents to indicate justification for his absence from training, before the second respondent. The second respondent shall thereupon keep in view the regulations and consider the case of the petitioner to come to the conclusion as to whether in the present facts, the absence of the petitioner 7 can be condoned. Such a decision shall be taken by the second respondent within four weeks from the date on which the representation is made. Needless to mention, based on such consideration to be made, if the shortage of attendance is condoned, the petitioner shall thereafter be permitted to appear for the ensuing examination and complete the course.
7. In terms of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.