Jang Bahadur Private Iti vs Directorate General Of Training ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 3977 Del

#64

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                           Judgment delivered on: 16.07.2018

W.P.(C) 5584/2018

JANG BAHADUR PRIVATE ITI                                    ..... Petitioner



                           versus



DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING (DGT) ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr. Murari Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent  : Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                               JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

instituted on behalf of the petitioner, belatedly assails a decision taken by

the Directorate General of Training (DGT), Ministry of Skill Development

and Entrepreneurship, Government of India, and essentially seeks a

mandatory injunction, directing the latter to grant affiliation to the former for

the academic session 2018-19.

2. The substratum of the present relief is predicated on an order passed

by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.11.2017 in LPA No.515/2017 and

other connected matters, whereby the official respondent herein was directed

to review 663 eligible pending applications, rejected by them, in accordance

with law, before the commencement of the academic session i.e. latest by

30.06.2018.

3. It is an admitted position that the impugned decision was rendered by

the Quality Commission of India on 19.07.2017, prior to the directions

issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.11.2017, which is extracted

hereinbelow:-

"7.09.2017 ITI Application Alert for Application No.A16001092 Dear Applicant, This is in connection with your application submitted on QCI online portal for opening of new ITI/addition of trades and or Units in existing ITI/re-affiliation during the session 2015-16 & 2016-17.

You are aware that for grant of NABET-QCI accreditation, you were mandatorily required to fulfil the norms/guidelines as stipulated by NCVT/DGT/NABET.

After submission of 'acceptance' for site visit on the portal, the site assessment was undertaken to your ITI on the scheduled date. During the site assessment the QCI assessor observed certain NCs. As per the stipulated procedure already communicated to you vide QCI's earlier mails in the matter, you were required to reply to the site visit NCs within 3 days, for closure by assessor, failing which, your ITI application shall not be considered for further processing and

the same shall stand rejected.

However, it has been observed that the response submitted by you in respect of your NCs in the portal within the stipulated time, is not in conformance to NCVT/DGT norms. Accordingly, the assessor has not closed your site assessment NCs.

In view of above, your application stands rejected and no further action shall be taken by QCI on the said application.

In case of any queries, please email us at [email protected] call at our Toll Free Number 1800- 3000-5348.

Best Regards, QCI."

4. It is an admitted position that, the petitioner in LPA 515/2017 and

other connected matters, was not a party before the Division Bench, in the

proceedings in which the said order dated 14.11.2017 was rendered. In fact,

the petitioner assailed the order dated 19.07.2017 by way of Writ Petition

(Civil) No.10260/2017, titled as 'Jang Bahadur Private ITI vs. Directorate

General of Training & Anr.', which came to be disposed of by a learned

Single Judge of this Court on 20.11.2017, whereby this Court, in terms of the

directions issued by the Division Bench directed that if the name of the

petitioner was in the list of the said 663 pending applications, they would be

considered, in accordance with law. However, since as aforenoted, the

petitioner's name was not in the said list of 663 institutions, their application

for review/reconsideration was not taken up and the impugned order holds

the field.

5. The present petition, which seeks to impugn the order dated

19.07.2017, is, therefore, an abuse of process of Court. Furthermore, having

slept on their rights, if any, for almost a year, the petitioner now seeks a

peremptory direction to the respondent to process his application afresh,

expeditiously, and to permit him to conduct classes for the academic session

2018-19, admissions for which have already commenced. The same is

manifestly impermissible.

6. Before parting, it is incumbent upon this Court to point out that the

scope of judicial review in relation to expert bodies dealing with the

educational matters is within a narrow compass. The Court can interfere

with the legality of the opinion rendered by such expert bodies, but cannot

substitute its opinion for that of the expert bodies in relation to essential pre-

qualifications requisite under the law, unless and until the decision of an

expert body is manifest with wednesbury unreasonableness. In other words,

the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the expert body, on

requirements pertaining to eligibility of educational institutions, for

affiliation/recognition, unless they have acted contrary to law or their

decision is characterized by perversity.

7. In this view of the matter, the present petition being devoid of any

merit is accordingly dismissed.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

JULY 16, 2018 dn