Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
6. Counsel for the respondent submits that the NIFT was set up in the year 1986 for the purposes of imparting high quality of education in the field of fashion technology and ancillary areas. The said institute is a recognized premier institute of the country and operates under the aegis of the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. It is a well-reputed institute, nationally and internationally, where exemplary standards of education are imparted and maintained. The said institute is a national institution with fifteen centres. Counsel for the respondent has further highlighted that the NIFT headquarter is at Delhi, and there are fifteen regional centres in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Gandhinagar, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Rae Bareli, Bangaluru, Bhopal, Kannur, Shillong, Kangra, Jodhpur, Patna and Bhuwaneshwar. The fifteen NIFT centres are directly under the supervision and control of the NIFT headquarters where all policies governing NIFT are formulated and implemented. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent is governed by the National Institute of Fashion Technology Act, 2006.
7. Counsel for the respondent further submits that the policies of the respondent have been formulated as per the provisions of the Act and the petitioner has failed to point out any cogent reason which would require interference with the functioning, order or policies of the respondent. Counsel further submits that under Section 7 of the NIFT Act 2006 the Board of Governors have been empowered inter-alia to frame Rules and Regulations for managing the institution. Exercising the said power the Board of Governors have approved the student inter-discipline transfer policy. The policy is well-thought out and well-laid policy by the Board of NIFT.
12. On the ground of discrimination counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to para 4 of the additional affidavit which reads as under:-
"4. That the petitioner has raised a contention that NIFT had allowed IDT prior to 2011-12 i.e. when there was no policy on IDT prior to 25.08.2010. NIFT did not have a policy of IDT. Prior to 25.08.2010 subject to availability of vacancy DG NIFT approved all cases on the basis of merits of the case. As per the records the case of Mr.Parthipan K. was considered in the absence of the policy as a special case by the DG in view of the availability of the seats in the desired discipline and due to the fact that the student has lost one year. Tania Adlakha was allowed on extreme medical grounds. Many similarly placed students namely D.Giri Prasad, Priyanka Jena, Poonam Sanghani, etc. were rejected due to non-fulfilment of the conditions of the NIFT IDT policy. Further, in the absence of the IDT Policy, during 2006-2009, IDT (Inter Discipline Transfer) of many students was allowed on the basis of vacancy position and SGPA (Semester Grade Point Average). Therefore, the petitioner cannot be compared with other those students."
"It has been explained to me and I fully understand the NIFT Policy that does not permit mid course change in discipline. Based on this clear understanding, I have carefully considered the matter and I would still like to try for change of the discipline. But in the eventuality that NIFT Policy, as may be formulated hereafter still does not permit any change of discipline, I shall revert back to my parent department and shall have no claim on the basis of this temporary inter discipline transfer to department of my choice. Finally, I have been explained and fully understood that after one semester if I return to my original department, I would be losing one complete year because I would need to complete the 3rd Semester in my parent department.