IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2011.0: BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE RAM Mormlxr O' O' wan Pmmom No. 200 1o}1;o1OoOO(s}R.1é:§). «. - BETWEEN: Sri Lingaraju K. H. 4_ . . _ ~ S/o. K. H. Ramachandrap_pa" Aged about 42 years O . Working as [M_MV)-(J V Sri Renukamba I?§u'ral.VITI _ Kukkawada'. Kariganur"( _ V Davanagere -Di's--t15j:ot O ' (By Sri Adv.) V' .1. State of Karnataka » jRop by the-.I_3rincipa.1 Secretary 'V Dépatrtment '-- AVi.dha11£:t-- .So.1idha Dr. Arnbuejfikar Road Barlgalore ~ 560029 A Q2. The Commissioner . . .PETITIONER ' Directorate of Employment & Training Koushalya Bhavan V Bannerghatta Road Bangalore ~ 560029 ML 3. The Joint Director (Training) Employment & Training Department Divisional Office, Kousalya Bhavan Bangalore -- 560029 4. The Principal Sri Renukamba Rural ITI Kukkavada, Kariganoor Cross Davanagere [By Sri Raghavendra G. Gayathri, R3) * if This WP. is filed under'i'r»l5L1*t.icles'".2265 of V the Constitution of India prayin;g<t_0"'quash' 'Anne:%:.F, the recovery order dt. 14/5_/201 p_assed by the respondent
No. 8 in so far as it relates ‘to”thfeipetitioner, and etc.
This W.P.4.:isv._cort1ing’ this day, the
Court made
Thoiighl this llpetition is listed for extension of
._Vinte-rimiorder, \y1’th.__.thve consent of the learned Counsel
—is finally heard and disposed of by this
order.
if The petitioner was appointed as a Junior
A Officer (JTO) during the year 1991 in Sri
Renukamba Rural ITI, a private Craftsman Training
Unit (for short, CTU) under a scheme known as
N
“Craftsman Training Scheme” jointly sponsored by the
Central 8: State Government; i.P.P. Administrations and
National Council for Vocational Training, forvv.cs’h_ort
‘NCVT’. That scheme laid down standards
and trade testing, in order to maintain of H”
CTUs in the light of global econc:5i’ny7;_’_’
quality and proliferation of lar_geV_gnurr1b.__er as 0. ” if
vis the demand of user andlicmplloyinent
opportunities, dependant’ C’ affiliation
procedures.
of”i:l1e Central Employment
3: Training; .issL1ed..’fa.lglett_c17:f_.AnneX.E, dated 28/7/1998
specifically pointing [i] that unless the Standing
‘ll”‘Corrirriittee’sA. Inslpection Reports, for short “SCIRS”,
ll’r.et’i_e_:.ctii ‘fully acceptable position of training
students should not be admitted for the
3u””‘–__lcougrsesg.{ii} the State Director–in~«charge of Craftsman
..l*’lrain.ling, should personally scrutinize the SCIRs before
-authorizing admission of students; (iii) experience
q/”
” discloseé problems arose when the standing committee
ljdl
inspections were delayed because of administrative or
any other reasons and in the meantime admissions of
the trainees when made, later on pressure was
to permit trainees to take up the ‘NCVT’ _
In the backdrop of such circunistanc.e’s’,'”—-ti1e””‘iJVoints_ ” it
Secretary of Central Employment 8;’Traiiiingji”d.ireetpe’d:_i
that the effective date of ‘dV_affi1iatiCo~nV: be
reckoned from the date of inspecti’o_n bfthe Standing
Committee. A _ x V
4. T he State of ‘regard to the
Grant–in–aid 1’o_r”-….Private Industrial Training
Institutes”in Karnata:kai,.”$997, for short ‘Code’, issued a
circaitar dt. 15/ 19:97, Annex.R1 to the statement of
salary grant would be admitted to such
Cofpvthosve had completed 7 years after the
; affiliation. ” 4′
C is 5.’ The Standing Committee inspected the CPU on
8’/1991 for the first time and submitted the ‘SCIR’.
‘”Annex.A, pointing out to the defect/ deficiency in
LA
relation to Mechanical [Motor Vehicle) Unit, and
directing the CTU to procure a four wheel motorJiv.ehic1:e
for imparting training.
6. The Standing ~:
submitted the SCIR dated 19/is/o1’s93, V€’*f1’3f1:OS’.e(i’1′:”
Annex.B, disclosing that were’ or
deficiencies in the matteri.of in the
CTU, which when ‘.~/»£:V’.fisfV_.::\¢lrflj;,’§’)vernment of
India» General of
Employrnent. V ‘V affiliation W.€ .f.
19/1 / 1993 letter dt. 31 / 10/ 1994,
Am:1ex.B.’A ” at it ll
‘4;7; though admitted the CTU for salary
wifelfi l / under the Code, and released the
A salaiyli of twelve months upto 3 1/ 12/ 1999,
V . when foiind to be ineligible, directed recovery of
/– from the petitioner by communication dt.
— 5/2010, Annex.F. Hence this petition.
iii
-5-
8. Petition is opposed by filing statement of
objections of the State, interalia contending
terms of the Code and the circular, AnneX..R_1 .
having been affiliated w.e.f. 19/ 1 /r199_3, A:i’n’e2ei3:.’V’s:aj’ary<. * 2
grant was permissible 7 years:}the'reafter
19/1/2000 and the grant"in"ad_e for reek ream
1/1/1999 to 31/12/1,999__aeeti*egv-…:hedC 'ipe.r;ea when
ineligible, hence the it is stated
that Annex.R2 .C:(:')¥I'ft.aif§LAASVH the Training
Officers in? ' grant and in
respect "of'wh.o?.n tdfosaiary wasordered to be recovered.
9. d”§’%I_eardV”‘theVp’ Counsel for the parties,
_ peruseti the ~ pleadings and examined the
impugned. indisputably, the CTU in
the7?pet;iti.oner was appointed, was inspected by
{the Committee, for the first time on
it when the defect/deficiency in the
Mechanicai (Motor Vehicle) Unit was not providing a
four wheeler motor vehicle for training, as observed in
the SCIR dt. 17/8/1991, Annex.A, while in the second
it
inspection on 19/ 1/ 1993, no defect was noticed and the
CSIR enclosed to Annex.B, when considereéciri~.th.e
Mechanical (MV) Unit of the CTU .
affiliation w.e.f. 19/ 1/ 1993 by; ….cornmunic.:atioi’i ”
31/10/1994, Anne:-LB. Applying ternié
circular, AJ1I1€X.R1, the of the * 0′
Mechanical {1\/[V] Unit thepi.C;i.”pLT. dc-a_nnot”‘b1.1t after
1/ 1/2000 and not earii’er_i_’si’ri.ceV:7 hf affiliation is
the period prescribed.
10. contended that the
communication ‘iXnnex.E, stating that
affiliation first date of inspection
of the Standing .Cominittee ie., from 17/ 8/ 1991, I am
.0 V”*a..fra;id:’isA”eunacceptab’1’e; I say so because the contents of
it clear that in some States, CTUs
witi1out_.- ohtaining affiliation admitted students to
H.””‘-._v:’cQurses;…0:’ and later on brought pressure on the
Jdepartment to issue hall tickets to candidates to appear
for the ‘NCVT’ examination and in order to prevent such
situation in “ensuing years”, certain measures were to
M
be taken, and hence it was clarified that the effective
date of affiliation of a trade be reckoned from thegdvatieof
inspection by the Standing Committee. _
clarification being prospective for,r,egnsuin’g”years; was ”
inapplicable to the trade in the
had obtained affiliation ie., A”l§:/iioreover
this communication is. not shown to be a-clarification
over the letter dt. granting
affiliation to thecru ugréj.’ /::1″~,i/f19Q’3 if
11. ‘ad1nission to salary grant
under ‘tvhe__Code._i.s “entirely discretionary and cannot be
claimed ~ a right by any institute,
management “or._an employee. The provisions of the
__upon the CTU to discharge specific
obligatiVoiis’ip- are not exhaustive whiie such C’I’Us
Q are tinder an obligation to function in accordance with
“Qthef’zdirections issued by the State Government or
‘ Director of Employment & Training in Karnataka from
if time to time. The Code also reserves the right in favour
of the Government to refuse, reduce or completely
M
wl()~
interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction
under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Though Learned Counsel for the petitioner
places reliance on several reported opinionlsill’of;-.:1iis___ _
Court as well as the Apex Court in s’upp.o:r~ty .,..
proposition that once salary is Vpaiciito the”~len?.l}5l53T€éii.i
after a long lapse of time, the””managementiivvouidmhave 2 C’
no right to recover excess ys_alaryk._1pnade”‘overf in my
considered opinion, the”olp–i.nion}slareijinapplicable to the
facts of this case; .sinceV”saia1y:’gra.nt V-is,f:~om the States
excheqj;ierV;’ ‘accountjable’»to thewpublic at large, in terms
of its executive .po;li_cy~.._:i1nder the grant–in–aid Code,
whichis sought ‘to.v’be”‘.recovered after having noticed the
“error committed. H lllll H
2 the Petition being Without merit is
C ‘Vi’ accordiriugiyvlrej ected.
Sd/-
Iudge
C W