Dismissed

Director Technical Education v. Mohit Sethi

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2014RSA/1658/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the second appeal, holding that a government letter restricting certificates was not retrospective and barring the institute from denying the respondent's statutory rights after visitors were granted similar relief.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the plaintiff's suit for a mandatory injunction to issue the National Trade Certificate.

Director Technical Education Vs Mohit Sethi — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.1658 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1658 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.12.2014

¶5

Director Technical Education

... Appellant

Vs.

Mohit Sethi

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, Addl.A.G.Punjab.

¶12

Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J (ORAL)

¶14

The present regular second appeal is directed against the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent claiming mandatory injunction against the defendant to issue and supply State Trade Certificate for the examination held in the session 1994 to 1996 against Roll No.96/7824 has been decreed by both the Courts below.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that since the institute i.e. ITI was not affiliated with the Director General Employment Training, New Delhi, therefore, National Trade Certificate could not be issued and on the basis of State Trade Certificate, plaintiff-respondent has obtained

¶16

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

RSA No.1658 of 2012 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

apprenticeship from the office of Executive Engineer PWD (B&R) Fardikot from 30.07.1997 to 2.3.1998 and thus urged that the present appeal involves the substantial questions of law as both the Courts below have committed illegality much less perversity in decreeing the suit.

¶20

Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that both the Courts below rendered the concurrent finding of fact and law and therefore, no substantial question of law arise for determination of this Court.

¶21

During the course of argument, attention of this Court has been drawn towards the findings rendered by the trial Court. For the sake of brevity, relevant paragraph is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶22

“9. I have paid a considerable thought to the respective submissions made by both sides and have gone through the evidence on the file very carefully. After careful perusal of file, I have come to the conclusion that it is the admitted case of the parties that plaintiff joined Industrial Training Institute at Faridkot during Sessions 1994 to 1996. It is also admitted case of the defendants that plaintiff passed the said course as per their rules. It is further admitted case of the defendants that

¶23

plaintiff joined for National Apprenticeship Certificate from March 1996 to April 1997 and

¶24

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

RSA No.1658 of 2012 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

cleared the same. Main objection of the defendants is that in their institute there were two sections, out of which one was A and other was B. In Section B students were of non affiliated unit. Though, defendants on file produced document Ex.D1, in which name of students of Section A and B has been mentioned, but in said document Ex.D1, it is not mentioned that students whose names are mentioned in Section B were of non affiliated unit. Even in the written statement nowhere it was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was in that section which was non affiliated unit. Further more there is not any such kind of reliable evidence from which it could be appeared that the plaintiff was in non affiliated unit. At the most this fact stands established that there were two sections i.e one was A and other was B. Plaintiff was in B section. But from abovesaid document Ex.D1 it is not proved that plaintiff was in non affiliated unit. PW2 Amit Kumar another student to whom defendants already issued the requisite certificate in his cross examination stated that the same instructor was studying to both the sections. Further DW1 in his cross examination stated that

¶28

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶29

RSA No.1658 of 2012 (O&M)

¶30

¶31

they burnt the record pertaining to admission of students, but the same was burnt during the pendency of case. He has not brought the list of record which has been burnt regarding admission of plaintiff. Further he stated that it is correct that it is the duty of institute to get affiliation from Director General Employment training, New Delhi. It is correct that it is not the duty of students to get affiliation from Government. From these circumstances, this fact stands proved that the plea taken by the defendants that the plaintiff was in non affiliated unit on one hand does not stands established and on the other hand it was the duty of defendants to get affiliation. There is nothing in his testimony from which it could appear that they informed the plaintiff that he is studying in non affiliated unit. So, he could not get issued National trade certificate. Further main plea of the defendant is that they received letter dated 20.05.1996, in which they were instructed not to issue certificate to non affiliated unit, but on the other hand DW1 in his cross examination has clearly admitted that it is correct that the said letter issued by the Director General Employment Training, New Delhi, is

¶32

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶33

RSA No.1658 of 2012 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

applicable to the students who joined 1996 onwards. It is correct that the said letter was not applicable to the students who joined in 1994. He further in his cross examination stated that it is correct that the instructions of the director have not a retrospective effect and the same are applicable on the students who first time joined in 1996 onwards. Further he admitted that it is correct that plaintiff joined electricity trade in 1994 and completed the course in 1996. So, from the abovesaid admissions made by DW1 as well as perusal of said letter dated 20.05.1996, show that same can not be said to be applicable with retrospective effect. Plaintiff has already cleared the course before applicability of said letter. Moreover, DW1 has stated that they have already issued certificates to the students about 16 of their institution who were similarly placed with plaintiff. If they have already issued certificates to the other students who were similarly placed with plaintiff, why discrimination is being made to the plaintiff, there is no explanation. In view of abovesaid discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the plea/objection raised by the defendants that in view

¶36

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶37

RSA No.1658 of 2012 (O&M)

¶38

¶39

of letter dated 20.05.1996, they are unable to issue National Trade Certificate, is not acceptable as the said letter is not applicable to the students who joined the course in 1994 and cleared the same in 1996. So, I have reached at the conclusion that the plaintiff is very much entitled to get issued National Certificate from the defendants according to rules. As the defendants have not issued the said certificate inspite of demand made by the plaintiff and inspite of issuance of notice to the defendants. So, the plaintiff is very much entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, both these issues stand decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

¶40

He further pointed out that lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court particularly after noticing the fact that the students who were studying in Section A in the same very institute got the National Trade Certificate whereas plaintiffrespondent studying in Section B has been denied National Trade Certificate. He further submitted that there was apparent discrimination at the hands of appellant-defendant/Institute. In support of his submission, he submitted that even the record pertaining to the issuance of National Trade Certificate to the students has not been brought on record and withheld from the

¶41

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶42

RSA No.1658 of 2012 (O&M)

¶43

¶44

Courts below to arrive at a finding other than the one which has already been rendered.

¶45

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the impugned judgments.

¶46

The lower Appellate Court while affirming the findings of the trial Court after noticing the contention of the State observed that National Trade Certificate issued to PW2-Amit Kumar, vide Ex.PW2/A was not disputed by the State counsel and therefore, once the State had already issued certificate to one of the students, the plaintiff could not have been denied and restricted to only issuance of State Trade Certificate.

¶47

The State had only relied upon Ex.D2 which is a letter regarding the record which is missing. Ex.D3 is a letter dated 15.7.1996 issued by the Director Industrial Training Department addressed to the Principal, ITI, Faridkot whereby it has been directed that un-recognized and unaffiliated traders would not be issued National Trade Certificates from the year 1996 onwards.

¶48

The aforementioned stand of the State was upheld by the lower Appellate Court by observing that authorities cannot back out from a stand after the students had completed their course successfully and therefore, the defendant-appellant are estopped to raise plea of delay as such submission is hit by provisions of Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act. Even DW1-Murari Lal, Principal ITI, Faridkot admitted that National Trade Certificate would be applicable

¶49

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶50

RSA No.1658 of 2012 (O&M)

¶51

¶52

to the students who had sought admission in the year 1996 onwards. Concededly the respondent-plaintiff is a student of 1994 batch and therefore, the directions contained in the letter, ibid, would not apply retrospectively.

¶53

Both the Courts below have rendered concurrent finding of fact and law after appreciating oral and documentary evidence brought on record.

¶54

I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the trial Court and particularly in view of the fact that letter dated 15.7.1996 would not have a retrospective effect but would apply to the students seeking admission in the year 1996 onwards. Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent is a student of 1994 batch. Therefore, the restriction as imposed by the Director would not apply to the plaintiff-respondent.

¶55

No substantial questions of law arise for determination of

¶56

this Court.

¶57

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶58

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶59

December 16, 2014 savita

¶60

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Director Technical Education v. Mohit Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Director Technical Education v. Mohit Sethi

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

Satbir Vs Rani and Ors.

Santokh Kaur and Ors. Vs Chanan Singh and Ors.

Jagtar Kaur and Ors. Vs Jasbir Kaur

Jarnail Singh & Anr. Vs Gurjant Singh & Ors.

Rajender Vs Rajbala

Banarasi Dass Vs Dev Dutt and Others