Royal Industrial School v. The Director Of Employment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P.No.17746 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 Royal Industrial School, Rep by its Correspondent, Door No.36/1, Ranga Nagar Road, Suramangalam, Salem-635 005.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director of Employment & Training, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
2.The Regional Joint Director, Employment & Training, Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore - 641 029.
... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct re-inspection of the petitioner industrial School for considering the grant of renewal of recognition from the academic year 2014-2015. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondent : Mr. V.Anandhamurthy Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to conduct re-inspection of the petitioner Industrial School for considering the grant of renewal of recognition from the academic year 2014-2015.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Industrial training school, which was established in the year 2006 and was granted temporary recognition for the following trades on 24.08.2006:-
1. Food Production 1+1 units
2. Food Designing, cutting and Co-ordination 1+1 units
3. As they are of temporary recognition, the petitioner applied for renewal of recognition on April 2006 and the order of temporary recognition was passed on 24.08.2006 with effect from 01.07.2006. Though in the order of recognition, no period was mentioned, it was claimed that it is valid for one or two years only. Hence, the petitioner again applied for renewal of the recognition from 01.07.2008 and also for the recognition for another two trades viz., 1) Embroidery and Needle work and 2) Advanced Integrated Software Technology. Based on the inspection report and on the recommendations made by the second respondent, the first respondent passed an order dated 13.10.2008 renewing the recognition for a period of three years i.e. from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2011. Accordingly, the approval has been renewed periodically.
When the recognition was valid upto 30.06.2011, the petitioner made application seeking extension of renewal of the recognition as per norms. Before granting renewal, inspection has been conducted during the months of February and March and the recognition will be passed before the end of June. It is also stated that guidelines for the academic year 2014-15 was issued to all the institutions who seek recognition, renewal and permission for additional Trade/units. So far as the petitioner is concerned the first respondent has directed the petitioner to approach the second respondent for causing inspection on or before 15.03.2014. The inspection was conducted on March 2014 and recommended for the renewal of recognition for the year 2014-2015. However, the recognition was not forwarded on time.
Therefore, the petitioner had admitted students in the trades viz., Food production, fashion designing, cutting and Co-ordination and Advanced Integrated Software Technology. After the admissions, the second respondent had called for the list of candidates for the approval which should be submitted on or before 30.09.2014 and the petitioner institute also submitted the list of candidates seeking approval, within time. It is stated that even though the inspection was conducted and report was sent, there was no order of renewal of the recognition. In the meanwhile, for the next academic year the petitioner had applied for renewal and recognition for Advance Integrated Software Technology.However, for the academic year 2014-2015 the recognition had not been granted by the respondents.
Later the petitioner came to understand that there were deficiencies as per the inspection report. However, the said deficiency was communicated much later to the petitioner.
4. In the light of the above facts, the plight of the 37 students who were admitted by the petitioner anticipating renewal have to be redressed Hence, the petitioner has sought for a direction for re-inspection of the petitioner institution for consideration of grant of renewal for the Academic year 2014-2015.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.
6. It is now brought to the knowledge of this Court that the order has to be passed by the second respondent on 05.03.2016,grating recognition and approval from 01.07.2015 to 30.07.2017 for the two trades viz., Fashion Designing Cutting & Co-oridination and Advanced Integrated Software Technology. So far as the Food production Trade is concerned the respondent had pointed out the short comings in the institution by letter dated 28.10.2014.
7. Considering the passage of time and also the fact that the approval has been granted by the second respondent for 2 years from 2015-2017 for two trades, the question of inspection at this length of time does not arise since atleast for the two trades the approval had been given upto 2017. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider the approval and grant for recognition for Fashion designing, cutting and co-ordination and Advance integrated software technology trades pertaining to the year 2014-15 considering the fact that the same has been granted for the subsequent years. Once, the recognition is granted, the results of the examination of those students admitted during the relevant peiod may be publsihed.
8. With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sm/arr To 1.The Director of Employment & Training, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
2.The Regional Joint Director, Employment & Training, Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore - 641 029.
+1cc to Mr.S.Kamadevan, Advocate, S.R.No.45532 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.45915 W.P.No.17746 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 SSI(CO) CA(17/07/2017)