Dismissed

Sri. Om Prakash v. Sri. Basavaraj Swamy

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023WP/18916/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a diploma holder challenging NITIE's decision to discontinue his Ergonomics course. The court held the petition was frivolous, the cause of action extinguished after campus interviews, and the petitioner abused court process by repeatedly filing cases lacking merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and interim application rejected; reliefs sought for issuance of ordained copies and transcripts denied as frivolous and infructuous.

Sri. Om Prakash Vs Sri. Basavaraj Swamy — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.18916 OF 2021 (EDN RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. OM PRAKASH S/O LATE SUKAI RAUT AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT 62 VRINDAVANAM, 4TH FLOOR 12TH BLOCK, ANJANAPURA, BDA LAYOUT GOTTIGERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560083

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.OM PRAKASH (PARTY IN PERSON))

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SRI. BASAVARAJ SWAMY REGISTRAR NITIE AGE ABOUT 55 YRS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING (NITIE) (UNDER MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) VIHAR LAKE, P O NITIE, MUMBAI-400087 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶13

¶14

2 . SRI MADHU RANJAN KUMAR (JS-ADMIN) JOINT SECRETARY -ADMINISTRATION AGE ABOUT 55 YRS UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 122C, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARYADMINISTRATION

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.SONA VAKKUNDM ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI.NISHANT UNNI, CGC FOR R.2)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY PARTY-IN-PERSON PRAYING TO PETITIONER IS AN ORDINARY CIVILIAN OF REPUBLIC OF INDIA, WHERE VERDICT OF ASSASSINATION OF LATE PRIME MINISTER, CAME AFTER FOUR YEAR, AND PETITIONER IS STRUGGLING SINCE LAST EIGHT (8) YEAR FOR PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY AS A ERGONOMIST AND MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT SINCE LAST FOUR (4) YEAR AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.08.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned petition is filed by the

¶22

petitioner/party in person seeking following reliefs:

¶23

1. Your Lordship, Petitioner is an ordinary civilian of Republic of India, where Verdict of assassination of Late Prime Minister, came after four Year, and Petitioner is struggling since last eight (8) year for Professional Identity as a Ergonomist and matter is pending before this Honorable Court since last four (4) Year.

¶24

2. Honorable Court may be please to Pass Order to Institute and Issue "Writ of Mandamus" directing respondent No.1 to issue "Certified Copy of Ordinance" passed by Board of Studies at National Institute of Industrial Engineering-NITIE, Mumbai to approve Academic Programme Entitled as "Diploma-In-Ergonomics".

¶25

3. Honorable Court may be please to Pass Order to Institute and Issue "Writ of Mandamus" directing respondent No.1 to issue "Certified Copy of Transcript" including details of total forty Credits (40) of "Pedagogy and Course Curriculum"

¶26

¶27

approved by Board of Studies at National Institute of Industrial Engineering - NITIE, Mumbai to conduct, Academic Programme Entitled as "Diploma-In-Ergonomics".

¶28

The facts leading to the case are as under: Petitioner claims that he has passed bachelor of Physiotherapy from National Institute of Rehabilitation, Training and Research, Cuttack, under Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar. Petitioner has also passed master of Physiotherapy, Special Neurology from Indian Spinal Injury Center, New Delhi. Petitioner has also successfully completed “Certificate in Basic Occupational Ergonomics" from Coloroda State University , United States of America.

¶29

The petitioner claims that National Institute of Industrial Engineering (in short “NITIE”) Mumbai, invited open applications through official advertisement to enroll eligible candidates to pursue

¶30

¶31

Diploma in Ergonomics. Petitioner claims that since he holds an eligibility criteria, submitted an application and got selected for the Program titled as Diploma in Ergonomics for the Academic Year 2012-13. The petitioner has further contended that the Diploma in Ergonomics program was officially approved by the Research Synopsis presented by the petitioner to conduct project work. The petitioner having completed his diploma in Ergonomics approached respondent No.1 and submitted an application requesting to process his application through NITIE placement cell. It is stated that respondent No.1, in response to the application of petitioner, sent a reply indicating that as per NITIE policy, placement cell facilitates only for the students of Two Year Post Graduate Program at NITIE. This compelled petitioner to knock the doors of the writ Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.9190/2017. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this

¶32

¶33

Court declined to entertain the claim made by the petitioner. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the order rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench in W.A.No.3213/2018. The Division Bench of this Court though concurred with the observations made by the learned Single Judge however directed the respondents to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the next campus selection by including Diploma Certificate Holders also in the list of candidates available for employment.

¶34

Petitioner further claims that he was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents as the directions issued by the Division Bench were not implemented. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, respondents made a statement that petitioner was permitted to participate

¶35

¶36

in interviews and an opportunity was given to be part of campus selection. Referring to these materials, the contempt Court was of the view that since there is compliance of the direction issued by the Division Bench held that it is not a fit case to initiate action for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

¶37

The petitioner who failed to secure

¶38

employment through campus selection has again knocked the doors of this Court seeking a mandamus thereby directing respondent No.1 to issue certified copy of Ordinance and also for a direction to respondent No.1 to issue certified copy of transcript including the details of total 40 credits of pedagogy and course curriculum approved by the Board of Studies of National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai.

¶39

¶40

The respondents on receipt of notice issued by this Court have contested the captioned writ petition. Respondent No.1 has filed a detailed statement of objection. First respondent has questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition and at Para 6 of the Statement of objections has raised an objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that first respondent is arrayed in the individual capacity and as such the petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent has also strongly objected insofar as the prayer sought in the petition. The first respondent has contended that Diploma in Ergonomics was a short term course conducted by the Institute under Technology, information, forecasting and assessment council (TIFAC) of the Department of Science and Technology, which was totally under the control of Union

¶41

¶42

Government. Therefore, a strong objection is raised in the statement of objections that there is nothing called as an Ordinance with the NITIE Institute. First respondent has taken a specific contention that petition is wholly misconceived as the Diploma program was approved by the competent authority of the Institute and not by a resolution as there is no Board of studies that exists in the institute as contended by the petitioner. The first respondent has also contended that petitioner is indirectly questioning the decision of the Institute to terminate the diploma in Ergonomics Course and is therefore, seeking documents which were already furnished to petitioner while taking admissions. The brochure and marks cards are already supplied to the petitioner and same are evident vide Annexures- B and D, which are annexed to the captioned writ petition.

¶43

¶44

7. While serious allegations are attributed to

¶45

the petitioner by the first respondent alleging that the petitioner’s conduct reflects that he is a litigious student who has indulged in arm twisting and arbitrary tactics by repeatedly filing petitions before this Court in order to obtain favourable orders though he is not legally entitled for the same. Referring to his conduct, first respondent has contended that he is guilty of abuse of the process of law and has virtually ventured into wasting the precious judicial time of this Court. The first respondent has also contended that the Institute’s decision to terminate the Diploma in Ergonomics program to which petitioner was enrolled does not in way change or take away the validity of the Certificate in Diploma awarded to the petitioner. First respondent has contended that petitioner has filed the captioned petition having failed to secure a placement inspite of affording an opportunity to

¶46

¶47

participate in campus selection though he was not eligible to participate in campus selection as he was only holding a diploma course in Ergonomics. On these set of grounds, the first respondent has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶48

Heard the petitioner/party-in-person and

¶49

the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶50

I have given my anxious consideration to

¶51

the material placed on record by the party-in-person. Before I advert to the prayers sought in the present case on hand, it would be useful for this Court to refer to the judgments rendered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioner’s main grievance in first round of litigation was that petitioner though had successfully completed diploma in Ergonomics, his application through lateral recruitment process was declined on the ground that Diploma in Ergonomics

¶52

¶53

which was only for a period of eight months cannot be at par with Post graduate course and therefore, the students who have completed diploma in Ergonomics are not entitled to participate in the campus selection process. The Co-Ordinate Bench having examined the rival contentions accepted the Institute’s claim. It would be useful for this Court to cull out paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench in W.P.No.9190/2017 which read as under:

¶54

"8. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law that where the discrimination is hostile, it would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, all persons similarly placed are required to be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation. However, Doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would also permit classification as a class and it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the matter of Special Courts Bill, 1978, In re (1979) 1 SCC 380 that the Courts to insist on delusive exactness or apply doctrinaire tests for determining the validity of classification in any given case, but, at the same time, classification would be treated as

¶55

¶56

justified only if it is not palpably arbitrary. Keeping in mind the authoritative principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to supra to the facts on hand and also in the background of Final Placement 2015 – Rules and Guidelines relied upon by 1^st respondent- Institute, the contentions raised by Sri.Om Prakash, party-in-person that there is no equal opportunity to Diploma Holders like extended to Post Graduate Diploma Holders does not appeal to logic and said argument would not attract Article 14 or same being violated by 1^st respondent.

¶57

9. In the instant case, petitioner had applied for short term – eight months course for Diploma. Whereas, students admitted to post-graduate progamme for two years will have to attend class room studies. Hence, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he stands on the same footing as that of post graduate Diploma Students. In that view of the matter, attack of there being discrimination between diploma students and post-graduate students would not stand the test of Article 14 and said contention cannot be accepted and it is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected."

¶58

The Division Bench in W.A.No.3213/2018

¶59

though concurred with the findings recorded by the

¶60

¶61

Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court however, at

¶62

Paragraphs 10 to 13 has held as under:

¶63

"10. In substance, Institute’s stand is, it had made no commitment to the candidates who enrolled for Diploma Course, with regard to placement. The said stand is sought to be sustained by the learned CGC on the ground that it is a policy matter.

¶64

11. It is indisputable that petitioner has obtained Diploma Certificate. Petitioner is right in his submission that Office executives, computer operators and those who work in offices for long hours need guidance and assistance of experts in ergonomics. We are living in a global village. Employment opportunities are not limited to one State or a Country.

¶65

12. Institute is run by the Central Government. Therefore, in our considered view, ample opportunity must be made available to students undergoing courses to seek employment. Although it is Institute’s case that there was no commitment for placement, we see no justification in refusing to include petitioner and similar candidates with Diploma Certificates for the Campus selection.

¶66

13. In our view, State is enjoined with a duty to secure right to work under Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Part-IV of the Constitution. In the circumstances, we direct the Institute to provide an opportunity to petitioner to participate in the next ‘campus selection’ by including Diploma Certificate holders also in the list of candidates available for employment."

¶67

¶68

The contempt Court has dropped the contempt proceedings in C.C.C.No.38/2020 and

¶69

paragraphs 3 to 5 read as under:

¶70

3. There are documents annexed in support of what is stated in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. Therefore, in our view, there is a substantial compliance made by the accused with the direction issued in paragraph 13 of the judgment and order dated 12th April 2019. Opportunity to participate in campus selection was granted to the complainant. There is no direction issued to the accused to secure employment to the complainant. The complainant wants to argue on merits of the writ appeal which is already decided. He wants to file additional documents.

¶71

4. What is alleged in this petition is a civil contempt. The allegation is of breach of the direction issued in paragraph 13 of the judgment and order dated 12th April 2019. By forwarding Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the complainant to the three organizations, the accused has complied with the order of this Court. In fact, the accused has stated that even for the preparation of CV, the necessary assistance was rendered to the complainant.

¶72

5. Hence, in our view, it is not a fit case to initiate action for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If the complainant has any other grievance against the accused, he is free to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law."

¶73

¶74

If these significant details are looked into, this Court would find that petitioner has abused the process of law by repeatedly filing frivolous petitions before this Court. Having failed to secure placement through campus selection, petitioner is seeking mandamus not against the Institute but against the Official of the Institute to furnish a copy of the Ordinance and also to furnish the certified copy of the transcript including details of 40 credits assigned to the petitioner in Pedagogy Course curriculum. On reading the entire averments made in the petition and the grounds urged therein, I am more than satisfied that the main grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition is on the premise that the Diploma course run by the NITIE, Mumbai, has not virtually assisted him to secure a job based on a diploma course. The grounds on which the captioned petition is filed also gives an indication that since NITIE,

¶75

¶76

Mumbai, has discontinued the Diploma in Ergonomics, he wants information for shutting the said course. If a party-in- person pursuant to direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court was permitted to avail the employment opportunities through campus placement, this Court is unable to understand as to how can he turn around and question the very format of diploma course in Ergonomics conducted by NITIE, Mumbai. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/party-in- person is awarded a diploma certificate in Ergonomics. It is also not in dispute that petitioner though did not possess eligibility criteria to participate in campus selection, pursuant direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, party-in-person was assisted by the Institute in preparing his C.D and necessary assistance was also rendered to the party-in-person to participate in the interviews conducted by way of campus selection. Having failed to impress upon the

¶77

¶78

private companies who had conducted the interviews, the petitioner has again knocked the doors of the Court.

¶79

Unless there is a real lis between the parties, the court does not answer mere academic or hypothetical questions and refuse from laying down any point that is raised. This court in previous round of litigation directed the respondents to facilitate campus interview to the petitioner. The petitioner has availed the opportunity. Now having failed to secure a placement, the petitioner cannot turn around and question the very the validity of course. Under the garb of securing a copy of ordinance, petitioner is virtually challenging the validity of diploma course that was imparted. The present petition to my mind has become infructuous, and the cause of action has been extinguished. Having taken cognizance of the prayers sought in the instant petition, it is not a fit

¶80

¶81

case where this court can exercise discretion under article 226 to decide disputes involving question of facts. The averments in the writ petition are found to be too vague. Therefore, the prayer sought in the instant petition deserves to be declined.

¶82

14. Mandamus is not a matter of right. It's issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject to well settled principles which have been established by the courts. This court directed the respondents to facilitate and arrange interview even though petitioner holds a diploma certificate. The petitioner having faced interview, failed to secure a job. Therefore, the reliefs sought in the instant petition are found to have become infructuous. The Apex court in catena of judgment has held that under the Constitution, mandamus can be issued by the court when litigant establishes that he has a legal right and there is a

¶83

¶84

corresponding legal duty by the party against whom mandamus is sought, and said right, should be found to be subsisting on the date of the petition. The party in person is found to be relentless in knocking the doors of this court. Direction of this court under article 226 of Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs are issued while doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity, that the litigant approaching the writ court must come with clean hands. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would certainly bear in mind, the conduct of party who invokes the direction of the court. A writ court cannot be used as a platform to abuse the process of court. The petitioner claim is not found on valid grounds. On reading writ petition, I would find lot of ambiguity and vagueness. The petitioner under the garb of enforcement of his rights

¶85

¶86

is virtually challenging discontinuation of diploma course. The petitioner's right of which enforcement is sought is found to be purely of private character and therefore no mandamus can be issued in the present case on hand merely because respondent is a state. Unless other conditions are satisfied for issuance of a writ of mandamus, mandamus will not lie.

¶87

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, the question of issuing the copy of ordinance would not arise as there is none. The material on record also indicates that the petitioner has pursued diploma course in Ergonomics, which is a short term course and as per the brochure, party-in-person was quite aware that he is not eligible to take interviews conducted for campus selection. The material on record clearly demonstrates that diploma program was conducted by the Institute under the Technology, Information, Forecasting and

¶88

¶89

Assessment council of Department of Science. The course was approved by the competent authority of the institute and not by a Resolution. If there is no Board of studies in Institute, question of supplying a copy of the Ordinance would not arise. If party-inperson is furnished with pedagogy course curriculum of academic program by way of a brochure at the time of admission, which is furnished by the party-inperson himself at Annexure-B as well as the marks card for having completed diploma program vide Annexure-D, the prayers sought in the instant petition cannot be entertained. What can be gathered from the material on record is that diploma in Ergonomics program, in which the petitioner was enrolled does not in any way take away the genuineness of the diploma certificate awarded to the party-in-person nor the said degree in diploma has caused any hindrance to the petitioner in securing employment. If the diploma in

¶90

¶91

Ergonomics is duly approved by the authority of the Institute and if the decision of the Institute to discontinue with the program does not affect petitioner, the prayer sought in the captioned petition cannot be entertained. I am more than satisfied that the captioned petition filed by the party-in-person is totally frivolous and the same lacks bonafides. If based on a diploma program, petitioner is not in a position to secure an employment, he cannot go on filing writ after writ against the Institute. The prayer sought in the petition cannot be entertained.

¶92

I have given my anxious consideration to

¶93

the averments made in the petition. On meticulous examination of the synopsis titled as chronology of events, what can be gathered is that the party-inperson has completed his diploma course. On completion of his research project work, thesis were

¶94

¶95

reviewed by the official research guide and finally thesis was also accepted and the same was approved by the officials of the NITIE, Mumbai. If the NITIE policy facilities placements only for the students of Two years Post Graduate program and if diploma in Ergonomics was the short term course, party-inperson infact was not entitled to have access to the facility of NITIE placement cell. It was only on account of indulgence by the Division Bench of this Court, petitioner was though not entitled to have access the facility of NITIE placement cell, he was not only permitted to take up the interviews through NITIE placement cell but, he was effectively assisted in preparing his C.D. Therefore, what can be gathered is all possible efforts were made by the NITIE, Mumbai and party-in-person was assisted and helped in what ever possible means. Therefore, I am more than convinced that the captioned petition filed is found be

¶96

¶97

more in the nature of complaint that inspite of completing diploma program in Ergonomics, the diploma course has not virtually assisted the party-inperson in securing an employment. That in itself would not constitute a ground to knock the doors of the writ Court.

¶98

The party-in-person was substantially heard and he was given fair opportunity to address his arguments. After conclusion of arguments by the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the respondents, the matter was reserved. The petitioner – party-in-person has filed an application in I.A.No.3 on 17.08.2023 and along with application, he has again produced 14 documents. The entire application spans 311 pages. The proposed amendment sought by the petitioner lacks bonafides. The additional documents, which are now sought to be produced after conclusion of the arguments, are also found to

¶99

¶100

be totally irrelevant. Either the stand taken in the proposed amendment is found to be repetitive or not at all relevant to the present lis on hand. The Hon’ble

¶101

Apex Court in the latest judgment has held that the party should not venture into filing bulky synopsis and documents. In the light of the conclusions recorded by this Court and observations made supra, the application filed in I.A.No.3/2023 is found to be totally irrelevant to determine the questioned raised in the captioned writ petition. The proposed amendment sought is found to be absolutely frivolous and does not raise any plausible plea, which warrants indulgence at the hands of this Court. The proposed amendment

¶102

also sets up a new case and therefore, the party-in-person intends to introduce new grounds by way of proposed amendment. In view of my conclusions recorded supra, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner –

¶103

¶104

party-in-person. This Court is more than satisfied that the proposed amendment lacks bonafides. The partyin-person has, in fact, placed on record bulky irrelevant materials. This Court is virtually compelled to examine those materials though found to be totally irrelevant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the application filed in I.A.No.3/2023 is liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected.

¶105

For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:

¶106

ORDER

¶107

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶108

Sd/JUDGE

¶109

*alb/-

Sri. Om Prakash v. Sri. Basavaraj Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Om Prakash v. Sri. Basavaraj Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vasanti Siddappa Pujer, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri Anand S/O Mahadevappa Kanashetti Vs Smt. Vinutha W/O Anand Kanashetti

Shankar S/O. Shivappa Belgavi Vs the Commissioner

Sri Sathish Kumar M Vs the Police Inspector

Mahesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Ajit Shamrao Veergouda Vs the State of Karnataka