Training Centers Cannot Be Penalized for Providing Training to Ineligible Candidates Selected and Listed by State-Authored Portals.

The petitioner, a registered society providing skill-based training, was authorized by the State to train candidates under the Mukhyamantri Koushal Vikas Yojna.

The list of trainees was supplied to the petitioner via the Chhattisgarh State Skill Development Authority (CSSDA) portal.

In 2021—five years after the training was completed—Respondent No. 2 issued an order (Annexure-P/1) alleging that 14 beneficiaries were ineligible (10 underage, 5 overage, and 1 duplicate entry) and directed the petitioner to refund ₹2,40,000/-.

The petitioner challenged this order, contending they had no authority to select or reject candidates provided by the State portal.

1. Whether the petitioner can be held liable for the training costs of ineligible candidates when the list of trainees was provided and authorized by the State’s own portal?

2. Whether the impugned order directing a refund is sustainable in law given the admission of clerical error by the respondent authority?

The court applied principles of administrative law and natural justice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The core principle established is that an agency cannot be penalized for executing a contract based on data provided by the principal (the State) when the principal admits that the inclusion of ineligible beneficiaries was a result of its own "clerical mistake".

Liability cannot be fastened upon a service provider for an error committed by the state officials responsible for candidate selection.

The Court observed that the respondents failed to produce any document proving that the petitioner had the authority to select or reject candidates or that specific age-based instructions were violated in the work order.

Crucially, the Court highlighted that the Respondent No. 2 admitted in the impugned order that the selection of ineligible beneficiaries occurred due to a "clerical mistake of the office".

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was duty-bound to train the persons listed on the CSSDA portal, they could not be held responsible for the State's administrative failures.

The Court found it legally incongruous that the State sought to penalize the petitioner instead of taking action against the "erring officials" responsible for the selection error.

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure-P/1) as unsustainable in law.

The writ petition was allowed in full.