Rejecting an ITI qualification based on verification by the wrong authority is unsustainable.

In brief

The question

1. Whether respondent No. 2 was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s ITI qualification on the basis of respondent No. 6’s report that it had not approved her admission, despite respondent No. 4’s approval.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside respondent No. 2’s endorsement dated 6 November 2021.

It also directed

It directed respondent No. 2 to reconsider the petitioner’s request for appointment to the post of Electrician, Grade-II, in accordance with law and within three months of receiving a copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The petitioner completed an ITI Electrical Trade course at respondent No. 7’s college for the 2011–2013 academic year and received a provisional State Trade Certificate.

p. 6

Respondent No. 4 had approved her admission, as recorded in the trainee list.

p. 6

The petitioner was selected for the post of Electrician, Grade-II, and her name appeared in the final selection list; she was also called for counselling.

p. 7

During verification, respondent No. 6 reported that it had not approved her admission.

p. 7

Relying on that report, respondent No. 2 issued an endorsement rejecting her qualification, which the petitioner challenged under Articles 226 of the Constitution.

pp. 7–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether respondent No. 2 was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s ITI qualification on the basis of respondent No. 6’s report that it had not approved her admission, despite respondent No. 4’s approval.

pp. 7–9

ii.2. Whether the impugned endorsement should be set aside and the petitioner’s request for appointment reconsidered.

p. 3, 9

03Law Applied

The Court considered the matter under its writ jurisdiction pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 3

It relied on Sri Ashwath v. State of Karnataka & Ors., W.P. No. 203455/2023 and connected matter, disposed of on 18 September 2024, in which the Court had set aside a decision taken in similar circumstances.

p. 4, 8

The Court’s reasoning applied the principle that an applicant’s qualification must be verified with the authority that approved the relevant admission; an adverse decision based on a report from an authority that did not grant that approval is not a proper basis for rejecting the qualification.

p. 8

04Reasoning

The record showed that respondent No. 4 had approved the petitioner’s admission to the ITI course, while respondent No. 6’s report stated only that respondent No. 6 had not approved it.

pp. 6–8

Because respondent No. 6 was not the authority that had approved the admission, respondent No. 2 relied on an incorrect authority when issuing the endorsement.

p. 8

The Court concluded that respondent No. 2 should instead have sought verification from respondent No. 4, and followed its decision in Sri Ashwath in setting aside the endorsement.

p. 8