Full Text
SHYAMPRIVATEINDUSTRIAL TRAINING institute Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ratish Kumar, Adv.
Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Vikas Chopra, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mr. Ankit Shah and Mr. Puneet Parihar, Advs. for R-3/State ofRajasthan.
52+ W.P.(C) No. 7078/2015 & CMNo.12971/2015 (for interim direction).
BANSUR PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE Petitioner
ANR. Respondent
Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for R-1.
Mr. Vikas Chopra, Advs. for R-2.
AND
53+ W.P.(C) No. 7092/2015 & CM No.12994/2015 (for interim direction).
ARAVALI PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE Petitioner
Page 1 of4 2015:DHC:11515 1"
Through: Mr. Dev P.Bhardwaj, CGSC for R-1.
Mr. Vikas Chopra, Advs. for R-2.
02.09.2015 L The counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent No.3 Govt. of State of Rajasthan, vide letter dated 31®^ August, 2015 addressed to the respondent No.l Union of India (UOI) and enclosing a copy of the Inter-
Departmental letter also dated 31^' August, 2015, has permitted consideration of all applications for accreditation received on orbefore 20^^
January, 2015, subject to the applicant institutions commencing imparting education in at least four trades, by August, 2017. It is further stated that the petitioner in all the three petitions had submitted the applications for accreditation before 20^*^ January, 2015 and are agreeable to the condition subject to which consideration of their application has been permitted and thus the petitioner in each of the petitions is entitled to accreditation / consideration for accreditation.
ORDER
2. The counsel for the respondent No.3 State of Rajasthan confirms the said position. Page 2 of[4] A
3. The counsel for the respondent No.2National Accreditation Boardfor Education & Training (NABET) states that though it is bound by the directions of the respondent No.l UOI but the process of grant of accreditation for the present session is already over and it is for the respondent No.l UOI to take a decision on the communications aforesaid of the respondent No.3 State of Rajasthan and whether, in pursuance thereto, the petitioners herein are to be considered for accreditation.
4. Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, counsel for the respondent No.l UOI in W.P.(C) No.436l/2015 states that in view of the aforesaid stand of the respondent No.3 State of Rajasthan, the respondent No.2 NABET would be entitled to consider the applications for accreditation ofthe petitioners.
5. However, Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.l UOI in the other two matters states that the respondent No. 1 UOI would have to take a decision on the aforesaid communications of the respondent No.3 State of Rajasthan. The counsel for the respondent No.2 NABET also joins in the said contention.
6. The counsel for the petitioners controverts that the time is over. It is stated that the last date for admission is 17* September, 2015.
7. 'At this stage, Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, Advocate also states that the process of consideration for accreditation canbegin.
8. It is obvious that the respondent No.2 NABET now has the concurrence of the respondent No.1 UOI to proceed with the consideration of the applications of the petitioners for accreditation. Page 3 of[4] r N- \
9. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of directing the respondents N0.I&2 to, in accordance with lawandsubject to the petitioners / applicants giving undertaking to commence imparting training qua at least four trades by August, 2017 and complying with all the requisite formalities / requirements, consider the applications of the petitioners for accreditation, within the shortest possible time, so that the petitioners, if found entitled to accreditation, are able to admit students in the current academic year. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. ^ SEPTEMBER 02,2015 'bs' RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J. Page 4 of[4]