Date of Decision:18.3.2014 Vs. Manoj Kumar and Others

Date of Decision:18.3.2014 vs Manoj Kumar and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Mar 18, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1134575

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1134575
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Mar 18, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Date of Decision:18.3.2014

Respondent

Manoj Kumar and Others

Excerpt

.....to have undergone proficiency training but the railways failed to send the certificate of completion of training to the petitioner, therefore, the certificate of proficiency on the basis of completion of apprenticeship training was not issued to them. aggrieved against the non-issuance of certificate of proficiency, the applicants invoked the jurisdiction of the central administrative tribunal and vide the order impugned in the writ petition, the same was allowed. diwakar gulati 2014.03.20 14:04 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.14285 of 2014 2 the question of fact is as to whether the applicants have undergone training after their selection by the petitioner. it transpires that the fact of imparting training on the basis of sponsorship by the petitioner is not disputed but it is asserted that due to certain administrative lapses the apprenticeship contract-registration card could not get registered at the time of commencement of training. it is so mentioned in the communication dated 24.09.2012 of the jagadhri workshop, appended with the writ petition as an additional document. once factually, the applicants have undergone apprenticeship training for the fault of railways or for any other reason, the issuance of certificate of proficiency cannot be denied to the applicants. in view thereof, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the tribunal which may warrant interference in the present writ petition. dismissed. (hemant gupta) judge march18 2014 (fateh deep singh) ‘d. gulati’ judge diwakar gulati 2014.03.20 14:04 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Full Judgment

CWP No.14285 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14285 of 2013 Date of decision:18.3.2014 The Central Apprentice Advisor ….Petitioner VERSUS Manoj Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr.Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

******* HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 30.04.2013 whereby an original application filed by 10 applicants for issuance of Certificate of Apprenticeship was allowed.

The petitioner selected the applicants for training as apprentice for a period of 1 year in the Jagadhri Workshop of Indian Railways.

The applicants claimed to have undergone proficiency training but the Railways failed to send the certificate of completion of training to the petitioner, therefore, the certificate of proficiency on the basis of completion of apprenticeship training was not issued to them.

Aggrieved against the non-issuance of certificate of proficiency, the applicants invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and vide the order impugned in the writ petition, the same was allowed.

Diwakar Gulati 2014.03.20 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14285 of 2014 2 The question of fact is as to whether the applicants have undergone training after their selection by the petitioner.

It transpires that the fact of imparting training on the basis of sponsorship by the petitioner is not disputed but it is asserted that due to certain administrative lapses the Apprenticeship Contract-Registration Card could not get registered at the time of commencement of training.

It is so mentioned in the communication dated 24.09.2012 of the Jagadhri Workshop, appended with the writ petition as an additional document.

Once factually, the applicants have undergone apprenticeship training for the fault of Railways or for any other reason, the issuance of certificate of proficiency cannot be denied to the applicants.

In view thereof, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal which may warrant interference in the present writ petition.

Dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE MARCH18 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH) ‘D.

Gulati’ JUDGE Diwakar Gulati 2014.03.20 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Date of Decision:18.3.2014 vs Manoj Kumar and Others Same Subject Education