← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/7167/2017

Sharda Private Iti v. Directorate General Of Training (Dgt) & ANR

2017-08-21Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur2 pages

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7167/2017 SHARDA PRIVATE ITI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Murari Kumar, Advocate.

versus DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING (DGT) & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.C.M.Goyal and Ms.Meghna Rohatgi, Advocates for R-1.

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 21.08.2017 Petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 13.7.2017 vide which the application seeking accreditation had been declined by respondent no.2 This rejection was for the reason that experience certificate of Devdutt is not as per the norms of DGT (page 67 of the paper book). Learned counsel for petitioner points out that Devdutt had been replaced by one Bhupinder Kumar and his certificates and documents had been uploaded. This position is denied by the respondent. Respondent submits that the only documents which had been uploaded were qua the Instructor Devdutt who did not have the experience certificate as per the norms of the DGT. In para 19 of the petition it has been specifically averred that Devdutt had been replaced by Bhupinder Kumar and all documents and experience certificates of Bhupinder Singh had been uploaded.

Now on query, learned counsel for petitioner admits the documents and experience certificate which had been uploaded were of Devdutt and not of Bhupinder Kumar. This Court notes this contention. This Court also notes the contrary averments appearing in para 19 of the petition and the admitted position being otherwise. This petition has to be rejected not only on merits but also for making false averments. The petitioner had not replaced the documents of Devdutt with Bhupinder Kumar. How he could make such an averment in the petition has not been explained. Admittedly, the documents of Devdutt did not qualify as per the norms of the DGT norms. In this background, the rejection order suffers infirmity. Petition is dismissed; being based on concealment of facts, it is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 21, 2017 ndn