The Division Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla consisting of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Chander Bhusan Barowalia opined that they cannot hold a plea tenable for the simple reason that the petitioner has approached this Court well within time and has been pursuing this case with due diligence.

 Facts

During inspection of the institute on 30.10.2021, Joint Inspection Committee noticed the following discrepancies:

  • All staff not present at the time of inspection.
  • Staff not as per norms.
  • Salary payment mode was not as per norms.

Procedural History

When the matter came up before this Court on 21.12.2021, this Court passed order to file a supplementary affidavit to this effect within a week. And for the Joint Inspection Report to be also placed on record for perusal. Thereafter, when the case came up for consideration on 28.12.2021, the Court passed the same order. In compliance to the aforesaid order, a supplementary affidavit was filed. However, even this affidavit was delightfully vague, as there was no satisfactory explanation in consonance with the aforesaid order passed by this Court. Therefore, order was passed to let fresh affidavit be filed clearing stating therein the aforesaid shortcomings. In compliance to the aforesaid order, now respondent No. 3 has filed supplementary affidavit, which goes to reveal that at the time of Joint Inspection carried out on 30.10.2021, out of 14 Instructors, only 7 Instructors were found to be CTI trained and 7 members of the staff are Diploma/B.Tech/BBA.

Contentions Made

As per the respondent, to bring qualitative improvement in vocational training across the Country, CITS qualification has been made mandatory for recruitment of Vocational Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes (Govt. and Private) in all States/UTs dealing with skill development have been requested to revise their recruitment rules and consider CITS as essential qualification while recruiting vocational Instructors in ITIs (Govt. and Private). This qualification has been relaxed by providing that incumbent acquire CITS qualification within the probation period after undergoing at least three months physical training in Government Institute of Training of Trainer's (ITOT) in line with DGT guidelines. Therefore, this discrepancy itself cannot be considered to a circumstance to not accord permission to commence additional trade.

The second major objection taken by the respondent is with respect to the salary not being paid to the employees through online mode as per the mandate of the guidelines, which make it mandatory for the payment of salary into the account of the employees through online mode, as is evident from Clause 3 of Agenda Item No. 3.5 which states “that, it shall be mandatory for management of ITI to pay the monthly salary/wages to their staff through bank only.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on instructions, states that henceforth institution shall strictly comply with the aforesaid instructions and pay the monthly salary/wages to their staff through bank only. His statement is taken on record. However, the learned counsel for the respondent states that even if petitioner now complies with these instructions even then affiliation can only be granted prospectively by placing reliance on Item No. 13 of the letter dated 20.10.2010.

Observations of the Court

The Bench observed that:

“We do not find this plea tenable for the simple reason that the petitioner has approached this Court well within time and has been pursuing this case with due diligence, therefore, the denial of affiliation from the current session, would be doing injustice to the petitioner-institute.”

Judgment

The petition was allowed by quashing the recommendations Committee DGT report and the petitioner was entitled for the additional 4th base unit 2 (1+1) for electrician trade as per the Joint Committee report of NCVT sub-committee. The petitioner was permitted to make admission based on the aforesaid counselling. However, this will be subject to the petitioner paying the salary henceforth as per Clause 3 of Agenda Item No. 3.5. The petitioner shall also take all necessary steps for ensuring that the instructors acquire CITS qualifications as prescribed.

Case Name: Ganpati Private Industrial Training Institute vs The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors

Citation: Civil Writ Petition No. 6384 of 2021

Bench: Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia

Decided on: 30th December 2021

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Ayesha