Allowed

The Mvm Private Industrial v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2022WP/9004/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution challenging a communication and Approximate Minute issued by the Directorate General of Training. The Court held that the New Education Policy does not apply and allowed the petition, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; impugned orders set at naught; matter remitted for fresh consideration within three months; exemplary costs if not complied with.

The Mvm Private Industrial Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

W.P.No.9004/2021 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MVM PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, N.VADDAHALLI, ALANGUR ROAD, PADMAGHATTA POST, KAPPALAMADAGU PANCHAYAT, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 132. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SRI NAGARAJ.K., S/O KRISHNAPPA.M., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. … PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA.A., ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTERPRENEURSHIP AND LIVELIHOOD, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING & EMPLOYMENT, KAUSHALYA BHAVAN, DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING,

¶13

¶14

MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT & ENTREPRENEURSHIP, 1ST FLOOR, CIRTES BUILDING, PUSA COMPUS, PUSA, NEW DELHI - 110 012.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI S.R.DODAWAD, CGC FOR R-3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.12.2020 ALONG WITH APPROVED MINUTE FOR 17TH RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 11.12.2020 (AT ITEM NO.17.02.11 (AT ITEM NO.4), IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED) VIDE ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3-DGT.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The short grievance of the petitioner is against the communication dated 28.12.2020 and the Approval Minute dated 11.12.2020 at Annexure-D issued by Respondent no.3-Directorate General of Training.

¶21

After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their advocates vehemently oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders; they seek dismissal of the writ petition contending that the impugned orders cannot be faltered.

¶22

¶23

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties

¶24

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter, in as much as, the requirement of New Education Policy does not apply to the petitioner-Institution which is apparently established in the old regime i.e., prior to promulgation of NEP; Mr. Nagarajappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is more than justified in drawing the attention of Court to the letter dated 05.11.2021 which makes this point clear.

¶25

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders to the extent they relate to the petitioner-Institution are set at naught. The matter is remitted to respondent no.3 for consideration afresh within an outer limit of three months, failing which, the erring officials of respondent no.3-Directorate may be levied with exemplary costs at the next stage of litigation. All contentions are kept open.

¶26

Now, no costs.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

The Mvm Private Industrial v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Mvm Private Industrial v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeeb Kumar Mohanta Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Riayaz Ahmed Vs the Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Sri Nawaz Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Deepa v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Suresh Vs the South Indian Bank Limited

Shivachandran Vs Bangarashetty