MANOBALU K. Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL TRAINING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are all students of Industrial Training Institute and studying in various Institutions. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the first respondent is responsible for regulating the conduct of Industrial Training Institutions by way of prescribing the curriculum and also holding examination. In its wisdom, it has modified the method of conducting the examination by introducing computer based test and also has prescribed an examination fee of Rs.376.00 to be paid by the candidates.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said change in the method of examination and also prescribing the examination fee of Rs.376.00, the instant writ petition is filed.

(3.) The first respondent is vested with the responsibility of prescribing syllabus and conducting examination. In its wisdom, it has prescribed the manner in which the examination has to be conducted and the fee for the same. It is not the case of the petitioners that the said act of the first respondent is in violation of any statute, rules, regulations or any law for that matter. The contention of the petitioners is that the act of the first respondent is arbitrary and unreasonable and skills of an Industrial Training Institute student cannot be tested based on a computer test, but he has to work on machines. The authority which has necessary expertise to decide the nature of examination is the first respondent and this Court cannot substitute its wisdom in respect of the same.