Vidarbha Medical Education And ... vs Maharashtra State Board Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1938 Bom

                                                                                                           wp.5581.16

                                                             1



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                            ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 5581/2016

Vidarbha Medical Education and Research Foundation, Akola Through its Administrative Officer of Jamnalal Goenka Paramedical Vocational Training Centre, Babhulgaon,Tq. & Dist. Akola. ..PETITIONER

v e r s u s

1) Maharashtra State Board of Vocational Examination Through its Secretary Government Technical Education Building 49, Kherwadi, Bandra (East), Mumbai.

2)        Vocational Education and Training Centre
          Through its District Training Officer,  
          Mankarna Plot, 
          Industrial Training Institute, Akola
          Tq. & Dist. Akola                                                                     ..RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr.P.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Miss N.P.Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents ...........................................................................................................................

                                                     CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                                   MRS . SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                          . 
                                                    DATED :       24  April, 2017
                                                                    th



ORAL  JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard finally

with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

wp.5581.16

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

Respondent No.1-Secretary of the Maharashtra State Board of Vocational

Examination, dated 31.08.2016, refusing to grant final permission/recognition

for starting the Certificate course in Yoga and Naturopathy.

According to the petitioner, in pursuance of the policy of the

Government, the petitioner-Institute submitted a proposal to the State

Government for grant of permission to start the Certificate course in Yoga &

Naturopathy. The provisional permission was granted to the petitioner for

starting the said course, by the order dated 23.05.2016. Certain terms and

conditions were mentioned in the said order and it was stated that if there is

non-compliance of the conditions or requirements, the provisional permission

would stand cancelled and final recognition/permission would not be granted

to the Institute. The petitioner submitted the proposal for inspection of the

basic infrastructure in the Institute of the petitioner, to the office of the

respondent no.2-Vocational Education and Training Centre, on 28.06.2016.

According to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 conducted the inspection and

found that the petitioner had the necessary infrastructure and equipments for

starting the Yoga & Naturopathy course. It is stated that only one deficiency

was pointed out to the petitioner and that pertained to the non-submission of

the appointment orders of the Teachers-Lecturers, that were appointed for

teaching in the said course. By the communication dated 08.06.2016, the

wp.5581.16

petitioner wrote to the respondent no.2 that five teachers were appointed for

the said course and the appointment orders of all the five Teachers were

annexed to the communication. It is stated that the said communication with

the annexed document, was submitted by the respondent no.2 to the

respondent no.1-Board, on 11.08.2016. It is stated that despite the removal

of the sole deficiency that was pointed out to the petitioner, by the impugned

order dated 31.08.2016, the respondent no.1-Board refused to grant

permanent recognition/permission to the petitioner, to start the Certificate

course, on the ground that the petitioner had not tendered the appointments

orders of the teachers and had not mentioned the numbers of the equipments

that were available in the Institute.

Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the

reasons recorded by the respondent no.1 for denying permanent approval

to the petitioner for starting the Yoga & Naturopathy course, are incorrect. It

is submitted that the petitioner had dispatched the communication dated

06.08.2016 to the respondent no.2, along with the appointment orders of five

Teachers/Lecturers and the said communication was transmitted by the

respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 on 11.08.2016. It is stated that

despite the said position, the respondent no.1 has wrongly stated in the

impugned order that the petitioner had not provided the appointment orders

wp.5581.16

of the Teachers that were appointed for Yoga & Naturopathy course. It is

stated by taking this Court through the documents annexed to the petition ie,

the Application Form and the list of equipments as also to the averments

made in the petition, that the petitioner had the necessary numbers of the

equipments that are required for conducting the Yoga & Naturopathy course.

It is stated that the permission is wrongfully refused to the petitioner by

stating that the numbers of the equipments are not mentioned.

Miss Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondents has supported the order of the respondent no.1. It is submitted

that while granting provisional permission, the petitioner was informed that

necessary compliances should be made or else the final permission would not

be granted for starting the Yoga & Naturopathy course. It is submitted that in

the communication dated 06.08.2016, that was addressed by the petitioner to

the respondent no.2 it is merely stated that the petitioner-Institute possesses

the appointment orders, but the appointment orders were not annexed to the

said communication. It is submitted that it was necessary for the petitioner to

have stated that the petitioner had particular numbers of each of the

equipments that are required for conducting the Yoga & Naturopathy course

and the petitioner has only stated in the Application Form that the Institute

possesses the equipments as per the requirements. It is submitted that in the

wp.5581.16

circumstances of the case, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the

respondent no.1 has committed a serious error in refusing to grant permission

to the petitioner for the reasons stated in the impugned communication dated

31.08.2016. Admittedly, the Institute of the petitioner was inspected by the

respondent no.2. According to the petitioner, only one condition was not

complied by the petitioner, inasmuch as the appointment orders of the

Teachers for Yoga & Naturopathy course were not tendered to the respondent

no.2. The petitioner had, vide communication, dated 06.08.2014, informed the

respondent no.2 that five Teachers were appointed for the said course and

it is mentioned in the communication that the appointment orders of five

Teachers are annexed to the same. We find that the receipt of this

communication is acknowledged in the office of the respondent no.2. The said

communication was dispatched by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.

1, on 11.08.2016. It was, therefore, within the knowledge of the respondent

no.1 that the petitioner had appointed five Teachers in Yoga & Naturopathy

course and their appointment orders were also submitted along with the

communication dated 06.08.2016. We find in the affidavit-in-reply filed on

behalf of the respondent no.2 that it is wrongly mentioned that the

petitioner had only conveyed by the communication dated 06.08.2016 that

wp.5581.16

the appointment orders of the Teachers were available with the Institute. We

have minutely perused the communication. The communication clearly recites

that the five Teachers were appointed and their appointment orders were

annexed to the said communication.

We further find that the respondent no.2 had wrongly refused to grant

permission to the petitioner to start the Yoga & Naturopathy course for the

reason that the petitioner had not stated the number of equipments in the

Application Form. If at all the respondent no.2 had really inspected the

Institute of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 would have been in a position

to state as to which equipments were not available with the petitioner-

Institute. The petitioner-Institute had stated in the Application form that it

possesses the equipments as per the requirements. Ideally, the petitioner

ought to have mentioned the numbers of each of the equipments that were

possessed by the petitioner in the Application Form. However, the failure on

the part of the petitioner to do so would not result in rejecting the Application

of the petitioner, especially when it is the case of the petitioner-Institute that

the respondent no.2 has inspected the Institute of the petitioner. If an

applicant/Institute states the number of equipments in the Application form,

the respondent nos. 1 and 2 would not blindly accept that the Institute really

possesses the number of equipments as mentioned in the Application, unless

wp.5581.16

they verify the correctness of the statement. If that is so, it was necessary for

the respondent no.2 to have stated as to what was the deficiency in respect of

the equipments, if at all the respondent no.2 had not possessed the required

number of items of the equipments. The petitioner has not mentioned the

actual numbers of the equipments in the Application form-proposal. Normally,

it would be necessary for an Institute to mention the exact numbers -items of

each of the equipments. Since, in this case we find that the claim of the

petitioner-Institute is not rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not

possess the required number of items, we are inclined to interfere with the

impugned order and direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the claim

of the petitioner for grant of permission-recognition for starting the Yoga &

Naturopathy course, from the academic session 2017-18 by conducting a fresh

inspection.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The

impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are

directed to conduct an inspection within one month and to pass an appropriate

order in the matter of granting permission/recognition to the petitioner-

Institute, for starting the Yoga and Naturopathy course, from the academic

session 2017-18. The respondent no.1 is directed to take a decision and pass

appropriate orders within six weeks.

wp.5581.16

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                JUDGE                             JUDGE

sahare