Full Text
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.
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 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
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 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 petitionerinstitution, 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 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 petitionerinstitution 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-R[5] 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-R[5] of the fact that the petitionerinstitution 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-R[5], no further opportunity of 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.
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 informe │ │ PVT JTI, the committee │ │ ITI Recommended │ │ Hatta, Fitter 4 (2+2) that-ITI was │ │ Chainpur, inspected │ │ Dist-Kaimur 11.03.2022 an │ │ (Bhabua), Plumber 2 (1+1) found that th │ │ Bihar-821106 institute │ │ Mechanic 2 (1+1) locked (Copy │ │ Diesel report annexe │ │ as Annexu │ │ 7.12) │ │ ITI was 2nd │ │ time inspecte │ │ on 26.03.2022 │ │ (copy │ │ inspection │ │ report │ │ annexed │ │ Annexure-7.13 │ │ However, t │ │ ITI failed to │ │ provided any │ │ the supportin │ │ documents for │ │ inspection. │ │ The Committee │ │ has decided t │ │ 2 t │ │ opportunities │ │ were given to │ │ the petiti │ │ ITI but ITI │ │ could │ │ provide │ │ documents │ │ which │ │ necessary │ │ inspection an │ │ hence │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
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 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:-
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:-
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, 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