Writ Petition No. 1168 of 2010 · Uttarakhand High Court

2008 when the first admissions were granted under the State Council for Vocation Training (for short S.C.V.T.). Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that on 11.04.2008 the petitioner applied before respondent no.3 for the grant of recognition to three trades namely Electrician, Fitter & COPA. Thereafter, the Secretary, Directorate of Employment & Training on being satisfied on the information provided by the petitioner conferred the responsibility of holding of the inspection on the Principal Government I.T.I. Haldwani. On 26.06.2008 the Principal Government I.T.I. Haldwani conducted a preliminary inspection and after being satisfied submitted a report to the Director wherein recommendation was made for grant of 2 recognition. Thereafter, the Secretary of respondent no.3 again undertook the task of holding of second preliminary inspection. After the said inspection on

09.07.2008 the Principal recorded that the petitioner(cid:146)s institution was satisfying the parameters as required for grant of recognition/ affiliation to the three trades. The Director Employment and Training Uttarakhand recommended for grant of recognition and permitted the petitioner to start three trades. S.C.V.T. also conducted an inspection on 30.08.2008 by the team, which was headed by Mr. P.N. Yadav. On 08.04.2009 the Principal Government I.T.I. on the basis of the report dated 30.08.2008 recommended for the grant of recognition to the three trades to the petitioner(cid:146)s institution for admission in the course of Electrician, Fitter & COPA for the academic year 2008-09 under the recognition of S.C.V.T. The petitioner(cid:146)s institution admitted students in various trades and they are perusing their studies. On 06.10.2009 the respondent nos.1 & 2 directed respondent no.4 i.e. Regional Director R.D.A.T. Industrial Area, Kanpur to conduct fresh inspection on 27.10.2009 and appointed Mr. D.K. Ojha, Deputy Director (Training) as to be an officer to head the standing committee. On 27.10.2009 the inspection was conducted and in the report it was submitted the petitioner(cid:146)s institution was satisfying all the norms of N.C.V.T. On 06.01.2010 the Director Training & Employment Uttarakhand, wrote a letter to respondent nos.1 & 2 stating therein that the report dated 27.10.2009 submitted by the standing committee of N.C.V.T. constituted by respondent nos.1 3 & 2 has recommended for grant of recognition/ affiliation the Director (Training), Central Government. By this letter the Director also requested the respondent no.2 to grant recognition to the petitioner(cid:146)s institution. Inspite of the fact that inspection was done and report was sent to the respondent no.2, the Joint Director of Training issued a direction to respondent no.3 on 18.03.2010 requesting him to constitute a standing committee as per the N.C.V.T. norms to hold a fresh inspection in the petitioner(cid:146)s institution. In compliance of 18.03.2010 order the respondent no.3 again constituted a committee on 13.05.2010 for inspection of the petitioner(cid:146)s institution. The said committee inspected and submitted its report on

20.05.2010 mentioning therein that the petitioner(cid:146)s institution is satisfying all the norms. Inspite of the aforesaid fact the respondent nos.1 & 2 are not granting recognition to the petitioner(cid:146)s institution on the ground of remarks stated by the standing committee on 28.01.2010. Remarks made by the Standing Committee in its inspection report are being reproduced below: (cid:147)Remarks: SCIR (cid:150) 27/10/2009 • • • • Shortage of major Tools & Equipment in fitter trade. Shortage of Equipment in COPA trade. Only one instructor available for each trade. Layout Plan does not workshop. indicate SCIR (cid:150) 02/10/2008 4 • Instituted did not ask affiliation for this trade so it was not considered by standing committee. (cid:148) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that petitioner(cid:146)s institution has satisfied all the required conditions for which the committee was constituted by respondent authorities, and the committee has submitted its report from time to time and also recommended for grant of recognition to petitioner(cid:146)s institution, recognition has not been granted so far. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact, the respondent nos.1 & 2 are not justified holding recognition of the petitioner(cid:146)s institution. He also submitted that in case recognition is not granted in time, students will be deprived from applying outside the State. On the other hand Shri V.B.S. Negi, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India submitted recognition to the petitioner(cid:146)s institution has not been granted due there are some shortcomings and petitioner is required to remove those shortcomings, which are mentioned in remarks dated 28.01.2010. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after examining the record available in the writ petition, I find that in the Standing Committee(cid:146)s Inspection Report dated 28.07.2008 as well as in the report of committee dated 20.05.2010 it is mentioned that petitioner(cid:146)s institution has fulfilled the required conditions. Thus, is clear that shortcomings 5 mentioned in the report dated 28.01.2010 were removed before the report of another committee dated

20.05.2010. Assuming that even some shortcomings still exist today, the same can be removed for which time should be given to the petitioner. But this could not be a ground for refusal of recognition to the petitioner(cid:146)s institution. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court thinks it fit and proper to direct the respondent nos.1 & 2 to take final decision in the matter for grant of recognition to the petitioner(cid:146)s institution within a period of 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of the order. In case respondent nos.1 & 2 find some shortcomings, they will grant some time to the petitioner to remove those shortcomings. In the meantime, the petitioner(cid:146)s institution is also permitted to send the forms of the students to respondent no.2. The same will be subject to final decision taken by the respondents in the matter. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim Relief application no.5438 of 2010 stands disposed of. Arpan ( V.K . Bi st , J.)

08.07.2010