AJAY SHARMA Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the act of the Indian Institute of Technology (in short IIT). In December, 1997 IIT through advertisement in various newspapers announced a six months course in Design Technology pursuance to which the petitioners applied for the same. Now, they realised that they have been cheated and defrauded because of the mis-representation made by the Director and officials of the IIT Delhi. Hence case be registered against Respondents No. 2 to 8.

(2.) In brief the case of the petitioners as set up is that the petition is that petitioners being students were way-led by the advertisement appearing in the leading newspapers. The said advertisement carried insignia of IIT Delhi and projected that course was sponsored by IIT Delhi. This was apparent from the folder/brochure which carried photographs of not only IIT campus building but also a big insignia of IIT Delhi in its background. That folder mentioned the Advance Design Technology courses to be of IIT Delhi and in strategic alliance with M/s Next Technology, M/s Karta Technologies India Phvate Limited and Foundation for Innovative Technology Transfer (in short FIIT) as Industrial partners. Acting on this representation of the IIT petitioners were induced to apply for the said course thinking that to be of the IIT Delhi. The IIT at no point of time clarified that it had not sponsored the said course. The petitioners were also made to believe that the fees for this course amounting to Rs. 75,000.00 paid to the "Foundation for Technology Transfer (FITT), was in fact meant for IIT Delhi". Petitioners were also informed on enquiry that the course was being conducted by IIT Delhi in strategic alliance with its Industrial partners. It was further informed to them that these Industrial partners were only to assist IIT Delhi in conducting the programmes smoothly and to handle thousands of industries eagerly looking for such professionals. Believing and acting on this information/assurances, petitioners filled up their application forms and paid the entrance test fees for Design School IIT Delhi. Petitioners appeared in the written test as well as interview conducted by IIT Delhi. They were selected on All India basis. Their admissions were confirmed by the IIT Delhi. They were called to pay the fees of the course by way of demand draft to the tune of Rs. 75,000.00 in lumpsum or in three equal instalments. It is the case of the petitioners that bonafidly believing that the said course was being conducted by IIT Delhi they deposited the requisite fees. After two months they were issued the receipts to be that of IIT Delhi. Subsequently in June 1997 another advertisement was given meant to add more candidates in the first batch of the course so introduced by the IIT Delhi. This was in connivance with the respondents 2 to 8. Respondents 2 to 8 collected lot of money by duping the innocent poor students. The classes of six months course commenced from 1/08/1997 in the premises of IIT Delhi. Identity cards were also issued to the petitioners showing them to be the students of Design School, IIT Delhi. The course from the beginning fell short of the expectations and this was brought to the notice of the course Co-ordinator, IIT Delhi. The respondents in order to show that it was course conducted by IIT Delhi promised them job placement with Karta Technologies India (Private) Limited. But that promise in fact was never materialised. However, it is alleged that the certificates were sent by registered post in June, .1998 but those were issued even before the final examination was conducted. The certificates were not carrying the signatures and seal of authorised signatory of the IIT Delhi rather the name of the Industrial partner that is Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer (FIIT) was affixed on the top of the certificate as a result of which such certificates had no market value. Thus, according to the petitioner they had been cheated by the respondents 2 to 8. Complaint was filed with the police but case was not registered hence this petition.

(3.) Averments of the petitioners have been refuted by the respondents 2 to 8, interalia on the grounds that since its inception IIT Delhi had made special efforts to reach out the needs of industries through sponsored and joint research, technology transfer, consultancy and testing. It was with a view to achieve quantum jump in the level of collaboration and interaction with industry and other user organisation on programmes of mutual interest, the IIT decided to set up a Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer (F1TT). In fact FIIT is promoted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India and was set up by the IIT Delhi as a registered society. The courses which are taken under the aegis of FIIT are also started on the approval of the IIT, Delhi. It has been denied by the respondents 2 to 8 that any mis-representation was made when the advertisement was issued. Rather it was made clear that the course was organised by FIIT, It was made further clear in the application form itself that the course was organised by the FIIT. However, the premises of the IIT was utilised for this course and even the faculty members services were utilised for training. It was also made clear through the prospectus that the course was organised by FIIT which had been set up by the IIT Delhi for the purposes of interaction and collaboration with industry on programmes and projects. Further the entire course was conducted as per programme and the schedule indicated in the prospectus. As part of their Industrial training and exposure the candidates were taken to the Industrial Design Centre at IIT Bombay, National Institute of Design at Ahmedabad, Matuti Udyog Limited at Gurgaon and also to the Ashirwad Studios at Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The scheduled exams, and evaluation were held as per the schedule and the final project viva-exam was held on 2/03/1997. According to the respondents 2 to 8 out of 35 participants petitioners one and five did not complete their academic projects nor did they appear before the jury for the final project viva. Thirty one candidates qualified in the grand total. Four candidates including two of the petitioners were advised for completing of their remaining work in a stipulated time. Out of these four, one candidate took the opportunity and completed the course requirements. He was found to be qualified in the course. Qualifying certificates were issued to 32 candidates. The certificate distribution cermony was held on 24/04/1998 in IDD Centre, IIT Delhi. The candidates who had successfully completed, the course/programme were given the qualifying certificates with performances marked on the reverse of the certificate but those students who did not qualify the course, and did not attempt to improve their performance were issued certificates of participation. Thus, according to the respondents 2 to 8 no mis- representation was made nor the petitioners were cheated.