V S Private Iti v. Directorate General Of Training & ANR
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6154/2017 & C.M. No. 25606 /2017 V S PRIVATE ITI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Shahrawat, Advocate.
versus DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.C.M.Goyal and Ms.Meghna Rohtagi and Mr.Bhagat Singh, T.O.
(DGT) for R-1.
Mr.Sagar Shivam for Mr.Vikas Chopra, Advocate for R-2/QCI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 27.07.2017 Petitioner is aggrieved by the act of respondent no.1 whereby his application seeking affiliation with respondent no.2 had been rejected.
Record shows that on 28.6.2017 a site visit was conducted by respondent no.2 at the institute of the petitioner. 80 Non confirmities (NCs) were raised; this was on 04.7.2017. They had to be removed by 07.7.2017. Contention of the petitioner is that he had cleared all the NCs except 11 which deficiencies as noted by respondent no.2 were whimsical and arbitrary. He has highlighted the said NCs. His submission is that the contention of respondent no.2 that his
self-declaration on a wrong letter head was only due to a typographical error. Although the name of the petitioner institute is admittedly Vaibhav Shine Private ITI but the letter head on which the self declaration was given was of Veekey Shine Social Welfare Trust. Submission of the petitioner on this score being that this being only a typographical error this could well have been ignored by respondent no.2. The document (annexure P-8) has been perused. This endorses the submission of the respondent that the declaration of the petitioner was on a wrong letter head; it was on a letter head of Veekey Shine Social Welfare Trust which was not the name of the petitioner. Submission of the petitioner is that this was a minor mistake and should have been overlooked by respondent no.2 is an argument which this Court does not endorse.
This Court has noted the NCs/deficiencies raised by respondent no.2. One of such NCs related to the sewing technology. As per respondent no.2 on inspection the Over Lock Machine 3 thread, Zig Zag Multi Purpose Machine-Industrial Machines found at the site were not industrial; they were domestic machines. In rejoinder this has been rebutted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the photographs would depict otherwise. Respondent no.2 has denied this; on affidavit it has been stated that the over-lock machines 3 three thread, Zig Zag Multi purpose machines are not industrial machines but they are domestic. Respondent has gone on to state that the respondent has a video of the same which would depict the correct picture. This statement of respondent no.2 which is on affidavit of the Director of respondent no.2 is taken on record.
The other NCs raised by respondent no.2 have also been perused. Deepika Pandey who was stated to be a Practical Instructor of Sewing Technology had done a dress making course and the marksheet of Deepika Pandey on this score had also been annexed. This was not as per the requirement of a Practical Instructor of Sewing Technology. On this score, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he has applied for three trades; he could well give up the trade of Sewing Technology and without this trade he should have been granted affiliation. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 disputes this submission. His submission is that if the petitioner wanted to give up this trade he could have given up this trade before he had uploaded the NCs i.e. before 07.7.2017 and not later than that.
This is also specifically stated in the counter affidavit in para 13 wherein it has been clearly stated that at such a belated stage i.e. after the inspection and uploading of the alleged clearance of the NCs by the petitioner, he could not state that he wishes to give up that trade. It is reiterated that the dropping of the trade is allowed only till the closure of the site visit NC's; once the site visits are closed the decision has to be taken in the entirety of the application which has been submitted.
Another NC which has been noted by respondent no.2 is on the resolution of the power supply. The sanctioned load granted to the petitioner was 25 KW as per the electricity bill but the load mentioned in the Resolution of Power Supply is 20 KW. This discrepancy also remained unexplained.
For all the aforenoted reasons as also for the details qua the
other NCs which find mention in the counter affidavits, the respondent was well within its authority to send the rejection letter to the petitioner. This order suffers from no infirmity. Reliance by learned counsel for petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court reported as (1996) 8 SCC 330 Al-Karim Educational Trust Vs. State of Bihar and Others and the paragraphs highlighted by him (particularly paragraphs 11(h), 11(i), 11(j) and 11(k)) would have no bearing to the facts of the instant case. This is admittedly an institute which is yet to commence. It is not a running institute. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of a Bench of this Court reported as 2002(52) DRJ Integrated Education Development Organization (Regd.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein in the last paragraph the Court had stated that the parameters and guidelines in the case of Al-Karim Educational Trust (supra) would apply even in the cases where a new college is to be established would be of no help.
In the light of the narration of facts supra wherein the various deficiencies noted by respondent no.2 have been highlighted, in no manner can it be said that these deficiencies were whimsical or arbitrary and could have been overlooked by respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 had to comply with all the necessary guidelines and parameters before he could have granted an affiliation. The self declaration on a wrong letter head followed by the petitoner not having the industrial machines for the Sewing Technology trade and the instructor not being properly qualified coupled with the various discrepancies noted in the resolution of power supply vis-a-vis the
sanctioned load are just a few illustrations of the 11 deficiencies/NCs raised by respondent no.2. The order passed by respondent no.2 rejection the application of the petitioner thus suffers from no infirmity.
Petition has no merit. Dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR, J JULY 27, 2017 ndn