Dr. Zakir Hussain Memorial ... vs The Director Of Training Thozhil ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4604 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                   &

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942

                           WA.No.309 OF 2021

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10599/2019(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             DR. ZAKIR HUSSAIN MEMORIAL PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL
             TRAINING INSTITUTE
             CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE, PERUNNAI P.O., CHANGANACHERRY,
             KOTTAYAM - 686 102, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
             K.A.LATHEEF, F.I.E., AGED 79 YEARS, S/O.LATE AHAMMED
             KANNU RAWTHER.

             BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING THOZHIL BHAVAN
             PMG JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, REPRESENTED BY
             DIRECTOR.

      2      BHARATH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
             PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, MANNAR P.O.,
             ALLAPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL.

      3      STATE OF KERALA
             MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPUAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

      4      STATE OF KERALA
             GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
             REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY.


             SRI. DINESH R SHENOY FOR R2,
             SRI.TEK CHAND SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 AND R4

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA.No.309 OF 2021                           2




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of February 2021

S. Manikumar, CJ

Being aggrieved by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10599/2019 dated

12.3.2020, instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant.

2. Brief facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows;

According to the appellant, appellant is a premier institution having 3.5

points in ITI grade within the parameters of Union of India. Based on Ext.P1

communication issued by the Industrial Training Department,

Thiruvananthapuram, dated 1.1.2021, writ petitioner/appellant forwarded

Ext.P2, proforma for grading of ITI, Kerala, to participate in the striving

programme at Hyderabad. According to the appellant, the eligibility criteria to

attend the aforesaid programme is 2.5 grade points and appellant is the

national award winner in the final grading, having top ranking viz., 3.15 grade,

produced as Ext.P3. Bharath Institute of Technology, Private Industrial Training

Institute, Alappuzha, the 2nd respondent, secured only 2.48 grading in the

Industrial Training Department, which is lower than any of the first positioned

ten institutions participated in the programme, exerted influence over the

Directorate of Training Thozhil Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram, and accordingly

an order dated 6.3.2019 was issued informing the participants including the

appellant and the award ceremony was conducted at Government ITI, Attingal

on 7.3.2019, by which 2nd respondent was given the 1st grading position in the

category of Private ITIs, which according to the appellant is most unethical,

arbitrary and highly illegal.

3. Aggrieved by Exhibit P4, appellant sent a complaint to the 1 st

respondent, ventilating the grievance that, on the basis of the parameters

decided by the Central Government for the grading of ITIs, appellant has

secured 1st position with 3.15 points and the ITIs which are included in the first

ten positions with more than2.5 points, were invited to participate in Strive

Project at Hyderabad and appellant had participated in the said programme.

However, the 1st respondent, the Kerala Industrial Training Department, is

selecting the 2nd respondent for the 1st position in the category of private ITIs,

which is not included in the first ten positioned institutes, and the said illegality

be enquired into and appropriate action be taken, a copy of which is produced

as Exhibit P5. It is the further submission of the appellant that, even after the

receipt of Exhibit P5 complaint, without waiting for an appraisal, issued Exhibit

P4 award to favour the 2nd respondent, which is arbitrary and illegal. Hence the

writ petition was filed.

4. After hearing the respective parties, a learned Single Judge of this

Court, ordered thus:

"7. I have considered the contentions advanced. Ext.P1 refers to a grading to be conducted by the Industrial Training Department of the State of Kerala. Ext.P3 produced by the petitioner does not show that it is a grading conducted pursuant to Ext.P1. It is the specific case of the respondents that Ext.P3 is with reference to a grading conducted by the DGT and is not in respect of Ext.P1. A detailed statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent and a counter affidavit has been placed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent producing documents to show that the parameters were separate and distinct. It is pertinent to note here that the documents produced by the petitioner as Exts.P2 and P3 appear to be truncated copies and the petitioner has not cared to produce proper materials before this Court.

In the above view of the matter, the inescapable conclusion is that the parameters fixed for the assessment were totally different. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate any claim of unfairness or irregularity in the matter of assessment for Ext.P4 award. In the above view of the matter, the prayers sought for cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed."

5. Impugned judment is appealed on the following grounds:

1. The learned Single Judge ought not have remarked Exhibits P2 and P3 appear to be truncated copies and that the petitioner had not cared to produce proper materials. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had taken earnest efforts in producing Exhibits P2 and P3 which was adequate to establish the claim of the petitioner.

2. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the parameters fixed for assessment for grading were totally different appears to be without proper application of mind. As per the evaluation, the appellant would have scored 201 marks, whereas, the 2nd respondent would have scored only 124. Instead 189 marks were wrongly given to the second respondent, whereas, the appellant was wrongly granted 166 marks.

3. The petitioner is entitled to conduct his trade with dignity and entitled to all appreciation and awards as the petitioner had obtained the highest grade of 3.15 points in the ITI grade under the parameters of the Union of India."

6. Though Mr.K.Shaji, learned counsel for appellant, made submissions

on the grounds raised, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case,

for the reason that orders have been issued by the Director of Training,

Industrial Department, Thiruvananthapuram, as early as on 6.3.2019, grading

the Government/Private/SCDD-SSTDD. ITIs as the best graded ITIs, as per the

list. At this distance of time, no purpose would be served in re-visiting the

entire exercise done by the Industrial Training Department, for the purpose of

grading the best ITIs in the State of Kerala.

Writ appeal fails, and accordingly it is dismissed, leaving it open to the

appellant, to raise all the issues raised in the appeal, in any future

proceedings, if so advised.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

                                                        SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                           JUDGE




                            APPENDIX



PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COMPARISON OF EXHIBITS R2(C) AND R2(D)