IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23399 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Shashank Bhushan S/O Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad R/O E13, Opp. Road No.-3, Kali Madir Road, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbag, Distt.- Patna-800020 .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director Directorate Of Employment & Training, Government Of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna- 800015 2. The Examination Controller Directorate Of Employment & Training, Iti Campus, P.S.- Digha, District -Patna 3. The Union Of India Through Directorate General Government Of India, Ministry Of Labour, Directorate Of Employment & Training, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001 4. The Director, B.K. Institute Of Technology Ashiana Digha Road, P.S.Digha, Distt.- Patna, Patna-800025 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoranjan Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Verma, Adv. For the Union of India : Mr. Santosh Kr. Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 5. 27-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the Union of India. The relief sought is to provide the original National Trade Certificate in the discipline of Mechanic Radio and T.V. attended by the petitioner during the session 1990-92 at the B.K. Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has passed the All India Trade Test Examination (hereinafter referred to as the AITT) conducted by the respondents in 1992. He has been provided with a provisional certificate but

Patna High Court CWJC No.23399 of 2011 (5) dt.27-03-2012 2/3

the original was not being issued to him. Some others from the same institution with regard to the same session and who appeared at the final examination in 1992 have been issued their certificates only after the orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 10328 of 2002/291 of 2002, stated to have been affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 127 of 2006 and by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6684 of 2010 dismissed on 3.5.2010. Counsel for the State and the Union of India submitted that the institution from which the petitioner has passed did not have valid recognition during the session. The institution was inspected for grant of affiliation on 15.4.1991. A report of infrastructure deficiency was submitted on 22.7.1991. Fresh inspection was done on 25.9.1991. On

9.7.1992 a decision was taken that only such students were eligible to appear at the AITT, 1992 which were inspected by the standing committee up to 15.7.1991 with positive recommendations. Since the present institution was

inspected afresh on 25.9.1991, it was not entitled to the benefit of the decision dated 9.7.1992 which was confined to institutions inspected and recommended up to 15.7.1991. The order in C.W.J.C. Nos. 10328 of 2002/291 of 2002 notices that one Sanjay Kumar from the same institute had appeared at the examination in 1992. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 291 of 2002 had also appeared form the same

Patna High Court CWJC No.23399 of 2011 (5) dt.27-03-2012 3/3

institution in 1992. Provisional certificates had been issued to them. It was held that the respondents were not justified in denying the original certificate to the petitioner therein. The Court finds that the institution is the same, the session is the same. The objection taken on behalf of the respondents is the same as already considered and rejected in C.W.J.C. Nos. 10328 of 2002/291 of 2002. Once the issue with regard to the same institute and with regard to the same session and the examinations in 1992 had achieved finality on an appeal preferred by the respondents, they were expected to act more responsibly and not contest the present application which was virtually indefensible for them. The respondents are directed to release the original certificate of the petitioner forthwith upon

presentation of the present order. The writ application is allowed.

P. Kumar/-

(Navin Sinha, J)