TRIPURARI NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Binod Kumar, JC to learned Standing Counsel No. II.

(2.) According to the writ petition, the petitioner was admitted to the Diesel Mechanic Trade for the session 1999-2000 at the Industrial Training Institute, Muzaffarpur, which is a one year course. The petitioner claims to have completed the course and appeared at the examination held in July 2000. He complains before this Court that his result is not being published.

(3.) Learned government counsel has placed on record his counter affidavit and has opposed this writ petition. The respondents have taken the stand in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had not deposited the caution money of Rs. 50/-, essential to be deposited at the time of admission to the course in question. It is further stated that in view of a large number of irregularities in admissions including that of the petitioner, the then Deputy Director enquired into the alleged improprieties and found that the caution money was not deposited by the petitioner in the allotted trade and in view of the recommendation of the enquiry report, respondent No. 2 (Director, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna) cancelled the registration of the petitioner, vide letter No. 583, dated 11.5.2002 (Annexure-D), from the then respondent No. 2, to the Controller of Examinations, Department of Labour, Employment and Training. Owing to this reason, the petitioner's result has been kept pending. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had to deposit the requisite caution money for the Diesel Mechanic Trade but had instead deposited the same for Draftsman Mechanic Trade, vide receipt No. 4077, dated 1.10.1999, which has not been withdrawn by the petitioner, vide letter dated 7.2.2005 (Annexure-B), from respondent No. 4 (Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Muzaffarpur) to respondent No. 2. The latter (respondent No. 2) has consequently decided that the petitioner's admission to the course was contrary to the rules, vide letter No. 14.2.2005 (Annexure-C), issued under the signature of respondent Nos. 2 to the then Principal of the college.