DEVENDRADAYAL LOHOKARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners thirteen in number and young in age have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a simple direction to the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in particular to declare the result of the examination held in March-1999 of the second year of I. T. I. of 1996-98 Batch. They have also made prayer for directions to the respondents to pay to the petitioners damages - compensation for the loss suffered by them for non-declaration of the results.

(2.) IN view of the importance of the subject to the young petitioners, who are anxious to begin their career of occupational trade after getting the results of the final examination of the I. T. I. courses, which they had entered in the year 1996 and which they completed in the year 1998 and they had appeared for the examination in March 1999. Unfortunately, they are waiting in queue before this Court with a hope for a favourable result from this Court in their petition from 18th October, 2000. In the normal course, we could have merely granted Rule and shelved the matter in the cupboard or in the heap of pending matters for final hearing. Instead of doing so, we deem it proper to hear the petition finally at the stage of admission itself. The learned counsel for the parties on both the sides have fairly consented for the final hearing of the petition. We, therefore, grant Rule and make it returnable forthwith. The respondents obviously have waived service.

(3.) THE respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are the State and State authorities. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Vocational Institutions through which the petitioners had undergone the coaching for the I. T. I. Diploma course. The respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have filed their affidavit-in-reply to contest the petition filed by the petitioners. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not filed any reply, but they have naturally supported the petitioners as it was in their interest to do so. The State authorities have thrown the entire blame on the institution of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As according to them, they were guilty of admitting the students beyond the intake capacity in the respective trades which was without any permission of the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, according to the respondent No. 1, the petitioners were not eligible to appear for the examination held in March 1999. It is further averred in the affidavit that the students were allowed to appear in the examination on the condition that they will be allowed to appear after executing the bonds by them that the decision of the Government shall be final in the matter and that it will be binding on them. It is further averred by the affiant that the students who were allowed to appear in the examination of March 1999, the Government had decided not to declare the results and accordingly permission for declaration of the result was not granted by the respondent No. 1 to the concerned institution of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is further averred by the respondent No. 1 that the institution is wholly responsible for damages claimed by the petitioners. According to respondent No. 1, the institution was also not affiliated to N. C. V. T. for these extra units from D. G. E. T. from the Government of India and, therefore, there was no question of allowing the students to appear for All India Trade Test. The bonds executed by the students, who appeared for the examination are binding on them. They were admitted illegally and, therefore, they were not entitled to get the result of their examination declared.