Disposed

The Kerala Private Iti Managers Association v. Director General of Training

Kerala HC17 Nov 2021WP(C)/21070/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the implementation of trade criteria in ITIs. The Court found force in the petitioners' argument but declined to pass any substantive order, directing them to submit a representation to the first respondent within one week, to which a hearing must be afforded and a decision passed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representation to the 1st respondent within one week; 1st respondent to pass orders within three weeks and afford hearing opportunity.

The Kerala Private Iti Managers Association Vs… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 21070 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 THE KERALA PRIVATE ITI MANAGERS ASSOCIATION, REGISTRATION NO.KLM/TC/584/2012, PB NO.10, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-691 301, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY IN-CHARGE PRASANTH MENON

¶8

2 THE PRESIDENT, KERALA PRIVATE ITI MANAGERS ASSOCIATION, REGISTRATION NO.KLM/TC/584/2012, PB NO 10, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-691 301. BY ADV N.SHOBHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF TRAINING, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING, MINISTRY OF SKILLED DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE BUILDING, LIBRARY AVENUE, PUSA COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110 012.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, THOZHIL BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV.SRI.S.MANU, ASGI

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO.21070/2021

¶14

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶16

W.P.(C)No.21070 of 2021

¶17

Dated this the 17^th day of November 2021

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above writ petition is filed with

¶20

following prayers:

¶21

“i) Call for the entire records leading to the Exhibit P2 and P3 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and quash the same.

¶22

ii) Pass such other orders deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. iii) Grant the petitioners the cost of the W.P.(C).”

¶23

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing Exts.P2 and P3 whereby 4 Trade Criterion in ITIs are recommended to be implemented. According to the petitioners, for implementing the recommendations made in Exts.P2 and P3, in the present situation especially because of Covid -19 pandemic and 2 floods in 2018 and 2019, it

¶24

is practically impossible. Hence this writ

¶25

WP(C) NO.21070/2021

¶26

¶27

petition is filed.

¶28

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioners and the learned ASGI.

¶30

4. The learned counsel for the

¶31

petitioners reiterated their contentions in the writ petition. While arguing the case, the counsel submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved mainly on Clause 2 in Ext.P3, by which it is stated that, “No admissions in Trades/Units in which Zero admissions in two cc”. The counsel submitted that, because of the pandemic situation and flood, there was no students in the previous years and now several students are coming to the institutions and a reconsideration of the same is necessary.

¶32

5. I think there is some force in the argument of the petitioners. But this Court can not pass any order because the authority

¶33

concerned is the 1^st respondent. The petitioners are free to submit a representation before the 1^st respondent within

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO.21070/2021

¶36

a time frame and the authority concerned can consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law within a time frame.

¶37

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed

¶38

of in the following manner:

¶39

(i) The petitioners are free to submit a representation narrating their grievance, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

(ii) Once such a representation is received, the 1^st respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶41

(iii) Before passing final orders, the 1^st respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to one of the representative of the petitioners. But I make it clear that the hearing can be done either virtually or

WP(C) NO.21070/2021

physically.

(iv) The petitioner is free to approach the 1^st respondent for admitting the students provisionally, subject to the final

¶46

decision in the representation.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.21070/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21070/2021

¶53

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶54

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY	OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
	REGISTRATI	ON DATED 24.4.2012 ISSUED
	BY THE DI REGARDING ASSOCIATIO	STRICT REGISTRAR, KOLLAM THE 1ST PETITIONER N
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY	OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
	4.8.2021 RESPONDENT	ISSUED BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY	OF THE CLARIFICATION
	ISSUED BY EXHIBIT P2	THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY	OF THE REPRESENTATION
	DATED 9.9. MINISTER	2021 MADE TO THE HON'BLE FOR GENERAL EDUCATION,
	GOVERNMENT PETITIONER	OF KERALA BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY 28.2.2018	OF THE LETTER DATED OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
	ADDRESSED TERRITORIE	TO ALL THE STATES/UNION S.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY 1.7.2019	OF THE LETTER DATED OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
	ADDRESSED TERRITORIE	TO ALL THE STATES/UNION S
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
	26.7.2019 THIS HON'B	IN WPC NO 16522/2019 OF LE COURT

¶55

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

PA TO JUDGE

The Kerala Private Iti Managers Association v. Director General of Training

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kerala Private Iti Managers Association v. Director General of Training

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

Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

K.M. Rafeeque Vs the Secretary

M/S Eminent Security Vs Govt.of India & Another

K.v.Achuthan Vs State of Kerala

Rahmath Potachola Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Thankappan Vs Dist. Collector & Ors.