9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstitute of Technology,Madras (inshort IIT ). The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The writ petitioner (respondent herein) is an Associate Professor in Metallurgical Engineering Department of the National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, the appellant herein. According to the writ petition, the writ petitioner submitted an application for admission in Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) sponsored by AICTE through Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. He was selected for admission in IIT, Madras and was asked to appear at that institution for completing pre-registration formalities. According to the writ petition, though he made an application to the appellant for relieving him to make the pre-registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course if the staff strength would be reduced below 70% yet it was observed that there was no consistency in that regard and the norms were not followed in several cases. Therefore, it would not be fair to deny such an opportunity. The appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court. It was pointed out that pursuant to an administrative decision dated 9.11.2003 by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (in short the HRD ) the Board of Governors had adopted the Leave Rules and Conduct Rules of the National Institute of Technology for implementation in the institute. Such decision was taken on the day the matter was heard by a learned Single Judge and the orders were reserved. By the time the learned Single Judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there is no reason as to why a different yardstick was sought to be applied for the respondent. He was the victim of machination. The respondent has clearly established as to how and why it was not possible for him to attend the course after April, 2005. It is submitted that the appellant with mala fide intention has pursued the respondent. In State of Haryana Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann this Court observed: The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Merely because in some cases the norms may not have been followed that cannot be a ground to hold that departure from norms should be continued. There are serious allegations about respondent having manipulated and fabricated documents to substantiate his stand. We need not go into these allegations. But as has been fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no official communication from IIT Madras to support the respondent s stand that he was asked by the authorities of the said institute not to attend the programme. There should have been some material to support the stand. Unfortunately, for the respondent there is none. On the other hand admittedly after April, 2005 the respondent had abandoned the programme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
