Deepak Raj Private Iti v. Directorate General Of Training & ANR

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DEEPAK RAJ PRIVATE ITI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Shawarat, Advocate.

versus DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.C.M.Goyal, Advocate for DGT/R1.

Mr.Sagar Shivam for Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate for QCI/R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 31.08.2017 The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter of rejection dated 31.07.2017 wherein his application seeking accreditation had been rejected by respondent No. 2 on the grounds as mentioned in the petition.

Counter affidavit of respondent No. 2 is on record. Record shows that the Institute of the petitioner was inspected by respondent No. 2 on 25.07.2017. 18 Non-Conformities (NCs) were raised by respondent No. 2 on 26.07.2017 which had to be completed and answered by the petitioner on or before 29.07.2017. The case of the petitioner was rejected on the following 4 grounds; they read as under:-

"1.

According to the site visit, dimensions of classroom-4 was found to be 24.09 on map which is signed by the principal, architect and assessor. Dimensions of classroom-4 are different in both the maps.

2.

Staircase is very narrow and not safe.

3.

Walls of washroom are not plastered properly. 4.

10th class certificate not available for Dasharath Sharma." Qua the first objection, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this objection was only upon the map; the query raised was that the dimension of the classroom was found to be 24.09 meters on the map; it is not the case of respondent No. 2 that the classroom on actual physical inspection was found less than 25 meters (as per DGT norms). It is reiterated that it is not the case of respondent No. 2 that the classroom on a physical inspection was lesser in size than 25 meters; the query was only qua the map. On this learned counsel for respondent in his counter affidavit has explained that the assessor had measured the area and it was found to be 24.09 meters which is less than the prescribed norms which prescribe an area of 24.09 meters for a classroom.

This Court notes that the NC raised was incorrect measurement in the map and not the actual physical measurement. Qua the map, it has been explained by the petitioner that the measurement mentioned in the map was a human error and this was corrected by uploading the map giving the correct dimensions. The fact that the map with the correct dimensions had been uploaded is not in dispute. The

objection raised being only qua the map, it will not be correct on the part of the respondent to now qualify and say that the actual physical measurement of the classroom was also less. Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in (1978) 1 SCC 405 Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, the relevant extract of which reads herein as under:- "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji.

Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:"

is not out of context.

Reliance has also been placed upon 115 (2004) DLT 375 Inderjit Singh Pathak Vs. Union of India & Others, the relevant extract of which reads herein as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that while the show cause notice was issued on one ground i.e. the marriage of the petitioner not being legal, while the ground taken in the impugned order is that the petitioner being retiree from the SBI had independent income and was not eligible. Reliance is placed on Motilal Lalchand Shah V. L.M.Kaul and Anr. Reported at MANU/GJ/0009/1971 : 1984(17)ELT294(Guj) to urge that where the show cause notice was issued on one ground and the order is passed on another ground. It causes prejudice to a party in defending itself against the new ground. Petitioner claims denial of opportunity of showing cause against the impugned ground on which order is based."

This Court also notes that even as per the respondent, the measurement of the classroom would be 90 cms less than the actual size which is 25 meters; the contention of the respondent being that the classroom measured 24.09 meters. This minimal shortage in size would even otherwise be negligible.

Qua the 2nd NC, it has been pointed out that his case has been rejected for the reason that staircase was narrow and not safe. Submission being that the NC was not raised on this count. NC raised on this count was that as appearing at page 34 (Annexure P-2) it was

that the staircase was not RCC and was without a proper railing. Submission of the petitioner on this count is that since the NC which was raised being on one ground and the rejection letter having surfaced on another ground, this NC also cannot be considered. This objection is also liable to be overruled.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has drawn attention of this Court to the NC raised; it reads herein as under:- "Auto NC: The staircase is not made of RCC and is without property railing."

The fact that an objection had been raised by respondent No. 2 that the staircase was without proper railing co-relate with the rejection order which had stated that the staircase was not safe; a staircase without a proper railing would definitely not qualify to be safe. In fact on the asking of the parties, the videography of the staircase had been played and shown to the Court. This videography substantiates the submission of the respondent that the staircase does not have a proper railing; although a railing has been shown to have been affixed on the staircase but the gap between the handle/bar and the staircase is so wide that by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that any safety standard has been met with; a person climbing the staircase may easily fall off the staircase; there is no barricading under the handle bar. This objection has valid force. Another objection raised by respondent No. 2 relates to the washroom; the walls have not been plastered properly. On this count, a map of the bathroom has been displayed. The bathroom appears to

be a black hole; there is no light in the bathroom and as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 plastering in the bathroom cannot be deciphered. In fact what can be seen in the name of a washroom is only a cubicle where even taps cannot be seen. The videography shown to the Court substantiates this objection. To say the least, the washroom does not qualify as a washroom. The last objection (4th NC) has been given by the respondent but noting the validity of the objection qua NCs No. 2 & 3, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayer made in the present petition. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 31, 2017