Aakashline Private Industrial ... vs Directorate General Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 3890 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Judgment pronounced on : 03.09.2013

+      W.P.(C) 2362/2013

       AAKASHLINE PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
       INSTITUTE                                   ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr U. Hazarika, Sr. Adv with
                    Mr Arunav Patnaik, Adv and Ms Mahima
                    Sinha, Advs.

                           versus

       DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING
       (DGE&T) & ANR                              ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr Amrit Pal Singh and Ms
                     Gurjinder Kaur, Advs for R-1
                     Ms Zubeda Begum Adv for R-2
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is a society established, inter alia, with the objective

to provide vocational and technical education to children by seeking

recognition and affiliation from the concerned Government Departments

and Authorities. The petitioner, seeking affiliation for starting a new

training course for electricians, applied to the respondent Directorate

General of Employment and Training to start a new training course. The

procedure in this regard is notified on the website of respondent No. 1-

Directorate General of Employment and Training and envisages

application to the respective State/UT Director, who is required to

scrutinize the application and after judging the authenticity and financial

position of the applicant, convey provisional permission in the deserving

cases and also ask them to make necessary arrangement for pre-

inspection by the concerned State/UT. The Management of the institute

has to thereafter make necessary arrangements and create infrastructural

facilities as per the prescribed norms. After a preliminary inspection is

carried out and a report is submitted, the State Director scrutinizes the

said report and constitutes a Standing Committee for inspection. The said

Standing Committee, after carrying out the inspection, may recommend

affiliation for the deserving trades/units. The report of the Standing

Committee is scrutinized by the Directorate General of Employment and

Training for ascertaining compliance procedure. The final orders

conveying grant of affiliation are to be issued by the Secretary, National

Council for Vocational Training.

2. After submission of the application by the petitioner on

29.09.2011, a pre-inspection was carried out on 19.01.2012 and the

Committee carrying out the preliminary inspection, being satisfied with

the basic infrastructure and relevant documents/papers, recommended

that the applied Trade Electrician having 1+1 is equal to two units may be

considered for grant of affiliation with NCVT.

3. Vide communication dated 18.05.2012, the petitioner was

informed that the inspection by the Standing Committee would be carried

out on 24.05.2012 and the machinery tool and equipment and other

related infrastructure may be kept ready for the inspection. The said

Standing Committee, after carrying out inspection on 24.05.2012,

recommended for grant of affiliation, sought by the petitioner, to be

started in August, 2012.

4. However, the affiliation sought by the petitioner was rejected by

respondent No.1 vide communication dated 24.08.2012, on the ground

that in the Standing Committee Inspection Report, electrician workshop

was not shown in the layout plan and the layout plan submitted with

clarification showed that the laboratory was in 'L' shapes with varying

dimensions, which were not suitable for training.

5. It would thus be seen that the application of the petitioner for grant

of affiliation was rejected solely on the ground that the laboratory was in

'L' shape with varying dimensions and for this reason alone, it was not

suitable for training. Vide communication dated 4.09.2012, the

Government of NCT of Delhi, conveyed to respondent No. 1 that as per

its norms/guidelines published on the website and communicated to the

State only space is prescribed and the petitioner institute had submitted a

layout plan which clearly showed that there was no blind space/hindrance

to the supervision by instructor. It was, therefore, recommended that the

case of the petitioner may be reviewed. However, despite

recommendation made by Government of NCT of Delhi, the application

of the petitioner was again rejected vide communicated dated 25.09.2012,

on the same ground on which it was rejected earlier. Thus, the

application of the petitioner seeking affiliation for electrician trade stands

rejected by respondent No. 1 solely on the ground that the laboratory was

in 'L' shape and, therefore, was not suitable for the purpose of safety and

monitoring.

6. Admittedly, there is no specific norm prescribed by respondent No.

1 as regards the shape of the laboratory. The brochure available on the

website of respondent No. 1 does not prohibit a laboratory having an 'L'

shape. There can be no denial that considering the nature of the trade

sought to be started by the petitioner, the shape of the laboratory should

be such that there is proper inspection by the Supervisor so that no safety

issue arises on account of the shape of the laboratory. During the course

of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents

that if the laboratory is 'L' shape, it will not be possible for the supervisor

to constantly monitor the working of all the trainees. The learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner states, on instructions, that to allay any

apprehension regarding safety of the trainees, the petitioner is agreeable

to employ two instead of one instructor, so that they have no difficulty in

monitoring the working of the trainees o account of 'L' shape of the

laboratory. Considering that no particular shape for the laboratory has

been prescribed by way of norms/rules and the petitioner is ready to

employ two instructors so as to obviate any apprehension with respect to

safety of the trainees, I see no reason why the respondents should not

grant affiliation to the petitioner for the said course, particularly when

there is no other objection to the grant of the said affiliation.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that the affiliation was sought for the year 2012-

2013, which is already over. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on

the other hand, submits that if affiliation is granted, they can start the

course in the year 2013-2014 itself. Be that as it may, the only issue

which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the

respondents were justified in denying affiliation to the petitioner merely

on account of the laboratory being 'L' shaped and the petitioner having

agreed to employ two instructors, the question whether the petitioner can

start the said course in the year 2013-2014 at this stage is not an issue

which arises for consideration in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ

petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to grant

affiliation to the petitioner for the electrician course, subject to the

petitioner employing two instructors who will be stationed in the

laboratory throughout the course of training. If it is found that in any time

the said two instructors are not present in the laboratory, it shall be open

to the respondent to withdraw the affiliation forthwith. Affiliation shall

be issued within two weeks from today.

8. The writ petition stands disposed of.

V.K. JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 03, 2013 BG