Disposed

Shri Mahendra Private Iti and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2019WRIC/20654/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court examined enforceability of a mandatory biometric attendance condition for NCVT trainee examinations. The court held that the condition introduced shortly before the exam was not enforceable for the current session but remained open for future examinations.

What did the court decide?

Clause 4 of the letter dated 09.07.2019 regarding mandatory biometric attendance shall not be enforced against petitioners for examinations commencing from 22.07.2019.

Shri Mahendra Private Iti and Another Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20654 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shri Mahendra Private Iti And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Narayan Rai,Shariq Shamim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Prem Narayan Rai, learned counsel assisted by Sri Shariq Shamim, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Council of Vocational Training, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'SCVT') and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶5

Sri Pankaj Patel has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 3. The affidavit asserts that the SCVT has permitted the trainees, whose names and particulars could not be uploaded, on the NCVT portal for verification on the past occasions. The students shall be permitted to appear in the examination subject to fulfilment of seven conditions laid out in the communication dated 09.07.2019. However, only students, who were admitted, prior to 05.10.2018 shall be permitted to appear in the examination.

¶6

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, submits that the respondents do not have any objection if the necessary details are provided within a period of three weeks from 22.07.2019 by the concerned institutions/trainees. The petitioners shall be permitted to appear in the examination, subject to the institutions/students providing the details three weeks after 22.07.2019.

¶7

The condition no. 4 requiring biometric attendance in all institutions as compulsory was contested by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the aforesaid condition has been introduced for the first time one week before the examination.

¶8

Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the SCVT supported the requirement by relying on the order dated 17.12.2015. The order dated 17.12.2015, on the foot of which the aforesaid condition of biometric attendance, is sought to be enforced merely required the authorities, to examine the case, for making biometric attendance mandatory in all training centres. This fact was not disputed.

¶9

Nothing could be demonstrated, by learned counsel for the

¶10

SCVT, that the proposal in the order dated 17.12.2015, was considered and made mandatory, prior to the commencement of the academic year and admissions in the institutions.

¶11

In such view of the matter Clause 4 of the letter dated 09.07.2019, appended in the counter affidavit filed by the SCVT shall not be enforced against the petitioners, for the examinations which are scheduled to commence w.e.f. 22.07.2019.

¶12

In such view of the matter Clause no. 4 of letter dated 09.07.2019 shall not be acted upon. However, it shall be open to the authorities, to act in pursuance of the letter dated 17.12.2015, and inform the institutions accordingly for future examinations.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the affidavit filed on behalf of the SCVT, subject to the above mentioned clarifications.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.7.2019 Pravin

Shri Mahendra Private Iti and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mahendra Private Iti and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Pal Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Arjun Singh and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Darshan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

C/M Sri Ajeet Nath Jain Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Nageshwar Pandey Degree College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Ram Kali Iqbal Bahadur Pvt. Industrial Training Institute and Another Vs Union of India and 7 Others