Dismissed

The Principal,N.I.Institute of Eng.Indus v. the Director of Training

Kerala HC21 Dec 2016WP(C)/12573/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Government circular directing private Industrial Training Centres to pay staff 2/3rd of Government IITs salary. The Court held the petitioner could not challenge the circular independently as the underlying challenge was dismissed. The petitioner may enhance fees with permission to meet liabilities without profiteering.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Principal,N.I.Institute of Eng.Indus Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12573 of 2008 (V) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE PRINCIPAL,

¶8

N.I.INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, AMARAVILA PO, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.

¶12

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

ADDL R3 & R4 IMPLEADED

¶14

4. S.S SREEKESH, JUNIOR INSTRUCTOR,

¶15

N I INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE,AMARAVILA P.O NEYYATTINKARA.

¶16

5. REJINJITH R.J, JUNIOR INSTRUCTOR,NI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, AMARAVILA PO, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶17

ADDL R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.6.2008 IN IA NO 7758/2008.

¶18

R1,R2 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M.V.ANANDAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.V.

¶21

WPC NO 12573 OF 2008:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶24

P1: COPY OF CIRCULAR 7/1/08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

P2: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18.1.08 AND THE ATTACHED ANNUL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

P3; COPY OF LETTER DATED 25/3/08 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 12573 of 2008

¶33

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

1.This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P1 & P3.

¶36

The petitioner is a self financing Industrial Training Centre. The Government issued Ext.P1 to implement the decision of the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), directing all private ITCs in the State, which are affiliated to NCVT, to pay to their staff 2/3^rd of the salary being paid to the staff in the Government ITIs.

¶37

2.In fact, the decision of the NCVT was under challenge in OP No.5202/1997 as referred in Ext.P1; and this Court negatived the challenge and thereafter, a direction was issued to implement the order. Pursuant to that, Ext.P3 was issued. Ext.P3 is the clarification of Ext.P1.

¶38

3.In the light of the fact that the challenge against the

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 12573 of 2008

¶40

..2..

¶41

decision of the NCVT ended in a dismissal, I do not think the petitioner can challenge Exts.P1 & P3 independently. Therefore, the challenge against Exts.P1 & P3 fails.

¶42

4.However, the petitioner has a case that they are entitled to enhance the tuition fee to raise revenue to pay salary. This Court is of the view that if there is no legal impediment, it is open to the petitioner to enahance the tuition fee to meet the additional liability not amounting to profiteering after obtaining necessary permission from the 1^st respondent.

¶43

5.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶46

bka/-

The Principal,N.I.Institute of Eng.Indus v. the Director of Training

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Principal,N.I.Institute of Eng.Indus v. the Director of Training

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.N. Raghavan Vs Sri. Anil Kumar

Rajendran Vs G K Suresh Kumar

Gopala Krishnan.D Vs the General Manager

P.Mohanan Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Meerankutty Vs Labour Court

Sree Anjaneya Charitable Trust Vs Sri. Bhanu Pratap Sharma