Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Indian Institute Of Pvt Industrial vs U O I And Ors on 15 February, 2017
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1474 / 2017
Indian Institute of Private Industrial Training Newai, Tonk, Shiksha
Sanchalan Avem Chikitsa Prasar Samiti, Dausa through its
Principal Heera Lal Rajora.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Skill Development
and Entrepreneurship, New Delhi.
2. Director General of Employment and Training, Sharam Shakti
Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
3. National Council for Vocational Training (N.C.V.T), Department
of Industrial Training, Government of India, New Delhi.
4. Quality Council of India, Institute of Engineers Building, Second
Floor, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
5. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Technical
Education, Government of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. Director of Technical Education,, Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
7. R.C.V.E.T. Directorate of Technical Education, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
And (2) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1475 / 2017
1. Rakesh Saini S/o Shri Prahlad Saini, aged about 18 Years, resident of Patel Ki Dhani, Dhani Jugalpura, Jugalpura Kalan, Tonk, Rajasthan.
2. Kishan Madhiwal S/o Shri Gajanand Madhiwal, resident of 49, Maharajpura Chainpura, Tonk, Rajasthan.
3. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Ram Prasad Saini, R/o Muhana Bagh, Piplu, Tonk, Rajasthan.
4. Tamlesh Sharma, S/o Shri Phool Chand Sharma, R/o Jaisinghpura, Chainpura, Tonk, Rajasthan.
(2 of 7) [CW-1474/2017 & 1475/2017]
5. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Kapoor Chand Saini, R/o FCI Godown Ke Samne, Near Ozha Hospital, Newai, Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, New Delhi.
2. Director General of Employment and Training, Sharam Shakti Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
3. National Council for Vocational Training (N.C.V.T.), Department of Industrial Training, Government of India, New Delhi.
4. Quality Council of India, Institute of Engineers Building, Second Floor, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
5. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
7. R.C.V.E.T. Directorate of Technical Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
Respondents
8. Indian Institute of Private Industrial Training Centre, New Vanasthali Mor, Jaipur Road, Newai, Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Proforma-Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anupama Chaturvedi. For Respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Ashish Kumar and Chandra Shekhar Sharma.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Order 15/02/2017 These two writ petitions have been filed, one by Indian Institute of Private Industrial Training, Newai and another by five students of the aforesaid institute. Their grievance is that even (3 of 7) [CW-1474/2017 & 1475/2017] though 243 students appeared in different semesters of main examination of All India Trade Test (for short 'AITT') 2014-15 as well as supplementary examination, which were conducted belatedly in July-August, 2016, result of 203 students has not been declared yet. It so happened that in respect of some of the candidates, their hall tickets could not be generated online and, therefore, Rajasthan Council for Vocational Education and Training, Directorate of Technical Education, Jodhpur(for short 'the RCVET') issued an order on 29.07.2016 stating that even though hall tickets(admit cards) of Practical Examination, July/August, 2016 are available on NCVT MIS Portal in concerned institution's login. However, as per the information, hall tickets of some regular and ex-students of some of the institutions are not being received. As per the guidelines of DGET, New Delhi, hall tickets(admit cards) can be issued to students upon fulfilling three conditions namely,
(i) Sessional marks must have been uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal;
(ii) Candidates must have completed 80% or more attendance and their such attendance must have been uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal and (iii) after depositing the fees of regular and ex- students, fees status must have been uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal. For the ex-students, however, requirement of uploading of sessional marks and attendance is dispensed with because they have already completed said process earlier while being regular students. It is contended that 40 ex-students were such, who were allowed to appear on the basis of off-line application forms. The examination was being conducted by Directorate, Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur, but result prepared by them is (4 of 7) [CW-1474/2017 & 1475/2017] forwarded to DGET for being declared on their website. While result of aforesaid 40 ex-students was declared, result of remaining 203 students has not been declared till date.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that aforesaid 203 students of the petitioner-institute have completed 80% and more attendance and details of their attendance have also been uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal. Their sessional marks have also been uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon e-mail dated 26.12.2016 sent by Assistant Director(Examination), RCVET, Jodhpur to the petitioner institute stating therein that such of the institutes, which are not able to upload fees status of the students on NCVT MIS Portal, should now positively do so by 29.12.2016 as the DGET is going to declare the result on 30.12.2016. Fees of the petitioners students were also deposited and details thereof have been uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal on 30.12.2016. Therefore, there is no justification for not declaring result of aforesaid 203 ex- students. The petitioner-institute, thus, could do so by 30.12.2016 with delay of only one day.
Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 to 4 opposed the writ petitions and submitted that trainees appearing in AITT must have NCVT MIS Portal generated hall tickets, otherwise, they are not eligible to appear in the examination and their result would not be processed. For issuance of hall tickets, all the three eligibility criteria must have been fulfilled. As the petitioner institute and some other institutes failed to complete the aforesaid (5 of 7) [CW-1474/2017 & 1475/2017] requirements before commencement of the July/August 2016 AITT, Hall Tickets of their trainees could not be generated from the NCVT MIS Portal. Therefore, those trainees were deemed to be not eligible to appear in the examination. Even if they have appeared in the examination, their results could not be processed on NCVT MIS Portal, due to aforesaid reason. However, considering their future, second chance has been proposed to be given to those trainees, which they may avail by again appearing in the examinations after fulfilling all the requirements. It is submitted that all the three requirements referred to above were to be completed and their details were to be uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal by 24.12.2016. It is contended that the competent authority vide e-mail dated 21.12.2016 sent to Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur required him to follow the guidelines for completing hall tickets eligibility report for regular as well as supplementary exam trainees up to 24.12.2016, so that their result could be processed. If the petitioner-institute has failed to complete that formality up to 24.12.2016, it has to blame itself and the respondents cannot be held responsible for such lapse on their part.
Mr. Arafat Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Manu Bhargava, learned Government Counsel, who appears on behalf of Respondents No. 5 to 7, also opposed the writ petition by adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General and submitted that fees status was to be uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal by the petitioner-institute and they were at fault in not uploading the fee (6 of 7) [CW-1474/2017 & 1475/2017] status, therefore, hall tickets could not be generated and result of aforesaid 203 students was not declared.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that 203 students of the petitioner-institute have appeared in supplementary examinations and they have completed 80% or more attendance and said details along with their sessional marks have been uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal. Fees of such students has also been deposited and said details have also been uploaded on NCVT MIS Portal, therefore, matter is of facts, which could be verified by the respondents without requiring such large number of candidates/students to again appear in the same examinations because it would tantamount to allowing whole exercise undertaken by them to go waste. Even though it is a fact that initially some other date was fixed as the last date for uploading aforementioned details on NCVT MIS Portal, but this date was extended up to 24.12.2016. In between an e-mail appears to have been sent by Assistant Director (Examination) RCVET, Jodhpur to the petitioner-institute advising it to upload fees status on NCVT MIS Portal latest by 29.12.2016, which could be done by the petitioner-institute with delay of one day on 30.12.2016 and for such delay of only one day, the students should not be penalized.
Writ petitions are, therefore, disposed off with direction to the respondents to verify the particulars furnished by the petitioner-institute with regard to their attendance, sessional marks and fees status of the aforesaid students and declare result (7 of 7) [CW-1474/2017 & 1475/2017] of aforesaid 203 students of the petitioner-institute within 15 days from the date of production of copy of this order before them, whereafter, consequences would follow in accordance with the rules of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-institute, at this stage, submitted that the petitioner-institute, under compulsion, had to deposit fees again although the same was earlier deposited, which may be ordered to be refunded.
If the fees found to be deposited twice, the respondents shall refund the excess fees within one month from the date copy of this order is produced before them.
Stay applications also stand disposed off. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of connected writ petition.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. Manoj