Delhi High Court
Ramashray Private Iti vs Directorate General Of Training & ... on 19 May, 2023
2023:DHC:3626
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12233/2022
Date of Decision: 19.05.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAMASHRAY PRIVATE ITI
THROUGH RAMASHRAY SWAYAM SEWA SANSTHAN
[REGD]
HATTA CHAINPUR, KAIMUR
BIHAR
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SH RATNESH PANDEY
..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Nadeem Khan,
Advocates.
Versus
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING
MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE BUILDING
FIRST FLOOR, PUSA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL
.... RESPONDENT NO.1
DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
5, A-WING, NIYOJAN BHAWAN
NEAR CUSTOM EXCISE SERVICE TAX OFFICE
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
2
PATNA, BIHAR-800001
.... RESPONDENT NO.2
Through: Ms.Anju Gupta and Mr.R.L. Goyal,
Advocates for R-1.
Ms.Pratishtha Vij and Mr.Abhinav
Mukerji, Advocates for R-2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner-institution, vide the instant writ petition is aggrieved by
the decision of respondent no.1-Directorate General of Training (hereinafter
referred to as „DGT‟) in rejecting the application for grant of affiliation for
opening four trades from the Academic Year 2018-19 in its 1st meeting of
Standing Committee of Accreditation and Affiliation (hereinafter referred to
as SCAA) dated 5-6.04.2022. The petitioner-institution also prays for
directions to conduct a fresh joint committee inspection and decide the
application of the petitioner-institution dated 29.05.2018 for grant of
affiliation for four trades afresh by following the principles of natural justice.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution
submits that on 29.05.2018, the petitioner-institution with an object to start
four trades in ITI made an application to DGT from Academic Year 2018-
19. Since the application remained pending for a long time and no decision
was taken, therefore, the petitioner-institution had to file a petition bearing
W.P.(C) No.8149/2021, which was disposed of by this court on 10.08.2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
directing the DGT to process the application and convey the result thereto to
the petitioner-institution within a period of three months.
3. It is seen that the DGT issued the directions to the said State
Directorate, Bihar to conduct a joint inspection and to submit a report latest
by 14.03.2022, however, on the request of the Secretary of the petitioner-
institution, the inspection was postponed on account of some medical reason
of the Secretary of the petitioner-institution.
4. On 17.03.2022, another communication was made by DGT to State
Directorate, Bihar to conduct joint inspection and send a report latest by
31.03.2022.
5. It is seen that on 26.03.2022, a joint inspection team visited the
premises of the petitioner-institution and submitted a report, wherein, the
petitioner-institution was not recommended for grant of affiliation. The
report so submitted by the joint inspection team was considered by the DGT
in its first meeting on SCAA held on 5-6.04.2022 and it has been decided
that the application of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. Therefore, the
petitioner-institution has filed the instant writ petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution
submits that the impugned decision is illegal and improper and the same
suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice as no show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner-institution before taking the impugned
decision. He also submits that the petitioner-institution was not required to
submit any document at the time of inspection. Without prejudice to his
submissions, he also submits that the petitioner-institution had categorically
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
requested the inspecting team to provide seven days time to submit a set of
documents as demanded by the inspecting team. He, therefore, states that at
the time of submission of the application when all relevant documents are
furnished by the concerned institution, therefore, at the time of inspection no
further document can be asked. He also states that even if any document is
required, sufficient time ought to have been granted to the petitioner-
institution to furnish the same.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution
places reliance on the decisions of this court in the cases of 'Maa Saraswati
Pvt. Ltd and Anr. vs. Directorate General of Training' in W.P.(C)
No.11602/2022, a decision dated 19.04.2023 and 'Mata Seeta Devi Private
ITI vs. Directorate General of Training' in W.P.(C) No.1913/2023 and
other connected matters, a decision dated 20.02.2023 and he states that under
similar circumstances, the decision taken by the DGT was set aside and the
matter was remitted back to the said authority for its fresh consideration.
8. Ms. Anju Gupta , learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1-DGT vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner. She states that if Annexure-R5 is
perused, the same would clearly indicate that the petitioner-institution itself
has admitted in the said document that the petitioner-institution was not in a
position to supply the same and requested for time. She also states that when
there is an admission in Annexure-R5 of the fact that the petitioner-
institution did not supply the relevant documents, therefore, the decision so
taken on the said ground cannot be said to be illegal or improper. According
to her, in view of clear admission in Annexure-R5, no further opportunity of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
hearing is necessary. The fact that documents were not supplied to the
inspecting team is admitted by the petitioner-institution. She also states that
since there is serious lapse in not submitting the documents, therefore, no
interference is called for. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1-DGT further states that the petitioner-institution can apply afresh for
affiliation and if such an application is made, the same can be considered
appropriately in accordance with law for the subsequent academic year.
9. Ms. Pratishtha Vij, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.2 also supports the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.1 and in addition, she states that the role of
respondent no.2 is limited to the inspection. According to her, admittedly, on
the date of first inspection, the petitioner-institution was found locked and on
second inspection, the set of documents were not provided. She also states
that the document placed on record as Annexure P-12 i.e. a letter dated
24.04.2022 of the petitioner-institution itself speaks about the lapses on the
part of the petitioner-institution. She further states that much after the
inspection was conducted, the petitioner-institution tried to send Annexure-3
and CD in respect to affiliation of ITI.
10. According to her, if the petitioner-institution chooses not to submit
documents at the relevant point of time, it cannot be allowed to rectify those
defects at a later point of time. She also states that even before 24.04.2022,
the date on which the documents are submitted by the petitioner-institution,
the impugned decision dated 05-06.04.2022 had already been taken. She,
therefore, supports the impugned decision and states that no interference is
called for.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
11. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
12. The impugned decision dated 05-06.04.2022 reads as under:-
Sl. Name of the Old/ Trades for Units for which affiliation sought/ Remarks
No. Institute New which recommended by
with address affiliation
sought Institute SCI/State SCAA
1. Ramashray New Electrician 4 (2+2) Not It is informed to
PVT JTI, the committee
ITI Recommended
Hatta, Fitter 4 (2+2) that-ITI was 1st
Chainpur, inspected on
Dist-Kaimur 11.03.2022 and
(Bhabua), Plumber 2 (1+1) found that the
Bihar-821106 institute was
Mechanic 2 (1+1) locked (Copy of
Diesel report annexed
as Annexure-
7.12)
ITI was 2nd
time inspected
on 26.03.2022
(copy of
inspection
report is
annexed as
Annexure-7.13)
However, the
ITI failed to
provided any of
the supporting
documents for
inspection.
The Committee
has decided that
2 times
opportunities
were given to
the petitioner
ITI but ITI
could not
provide any
documents
which are
necessary for
inspection and
hence "Not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
Recommended".
13. It is thus seen that the reason for rejection is the petitioner-institution
not providing the supporting document for inspection. No doubt, the
inspecting team is always at liberty to ask for any supporting document in
order to ascertain as to whether the relevant regulations or the requirements
are being fulfilled by the inspecting institution.
14. The submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner-institution to the effect that such a document is not the requirement
under any of the regulations, is not acceptable. Even if such a stipulation is
not made in any regulations with regard to the providing of document but the
purpose of inspection is always to ascertain the factual circumstances and
infrastructure available at the ground level. The same can only be ascertained
and verified once the corresponding record is produced by the inspecting
institution.
15. However, in the instant case, the petitioner-institution has requested
for providing seven days time to submit the set of documents, the said
position factually is not denied but what is stated is that submission of the
documents at a later point of time is not permissible.
16. This court is not inclined to accept the submissions made by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents to that effect.
17. If the petitioner-institution at the time of inspection had requested for
some time to provide the documents, such a request could have been
accepted by the inspecting team and seven days time could have been
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
allowed for the same. The facts and circumstances of the instant case do not
indicate as to why the time was not granted to the petitioner-institution.
18. It is also to be noted that before taking the impugned decision, the
petitioner-institution should have been supplied with the copy of the
inspection report and sufficient time should have been given to rectify the
same. Such a view has been taken by this court in Mata Seeta Devi Private
ITI vs. Directorate General of Training in W.P.(C) No.1913/2023 and other
connected matters, a decision dated 20.02.2023. Paragraph nos.9 and 11
thereof, are reproduced as under:-
"9. Before proceeding further to analyse the facts and the issue
involved in each case, it is to be noted that in each case, the impugned
decision is taken by the respondents without providing any opportunity of
hearing to them. The fact as to whether the grading system can possibly
be made applicable uniformly to the petitioners-institution or not could
have been only ascertained, if the respondents had heard the petitioners.
Each institution may have different explanation. If the institution is
heard, and the explanation is considered by the respondent, the
appropriate decision could have been taken thereon. Since the petitioner
institutions were not heard and the impugned decision has been taken,
therefore, in all those cases, the decision so taken by the respondent is in
violation of principle of natural justice. Without going into the details of
each case, this court finds it appropriate to set aside all impugned
decisions passed in respective cases only on this ground.
....
11. The respondents are at liberty to conduct a fresh inspection if they
so desire and issue a fresh show cause notice to each of the petitioner
institutions within a period of five weeks from today. The petitioners are
at liberty to file their response within a period of two weeks thereafter.
The Respondents shall take a final decision within two weeks thereafter."
19. In W.P.(C) No.11602/2022 titled as Maa Saraswati Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
vs. Directorate General of Training, a decision dated 19.04.2023, this court
has taken an almost similar view. Paragraph nos. 9 to 11 thereof are
reproduced as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
"9. In view of the aforesaid discussion this court is of the considered
opinion that the deficiencies noted by the respondent-DGT were not
pointed out to the petitioners before the impugned decision was taken. It
is for this reason, the impugned decision is unsustainable. The same is,
therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent-DGT
for its fresh consideration, in accordance with the law.
10. Needless to state that once the decision taken by the respondent-
DGT is set aside, the respondent-DGT would consider the case of the
petitioners for grant of affiliation with respect to the next Academic Year
i.e. 2023-2024 and shall take a decision as per the applicable norms.
11. Respondent-DGT is directed to take the decision within two months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."
20. It is thus seen that firstly, the impugned decision of rejection of
application of the petitioner-institution deserves to be set aside on the ground
that the inspection report was not supplied to the petitioner-institution before
the impugned decision was taken nor was sufficient time given to the
petitioner-institution to produce the relevant documents. Secondly, the entire
decision is based on non-submission of the document and the impugned
decision nowhere reflects any infrastructural deficiency otherwise.
21. Since the petitioner-institution had requested for time to produce the
relevant documents and this court finds that the rejection of such a request is
not acceptable, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the impugned decision dated 05-06.04.2023 is set aside and the
application of the petitioner-institution dated 29.05.2018 is restored with the
DGT.
22. The DGT is directed to consider the said application afresh in
accordance with law for grant of affiliation with respect to next Academic
Year i.e. Academic Year 2023-24 and if necessary, the DGT may ask for
fresh inspection. If there are any deficiencies noted in the inspection report,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
let a copy of the inspection report along with the list of deficiencies be
supplied to the petitioner-institution and sufficient time to rectify or to
explain the same be provided.
23. Let the aforesaid exercise be conducted within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed today.
24. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MAY 19, 2023/nc
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:24.05.2023
17:53:31
