Satya Prabha Private Iti Thru.Manager Shree Raj Kumar Yadav v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill Development And Entrepreneurship New De

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi and Ms. Riya Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No.9893 of 2025, Sri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for petitioner in Writ-C No.9776 of 2025, Sri Varun Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel for Union of India, Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2 WRIC No. 9893 of 2025

2. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed challenging the validity of impugned order dated 29.08.2025, passed by the Government of India regarding de-affiliation order of petitioners Industrial Training Institutes. As such submissions in both the petitions were heard together and both the petitions are being decided together by a common judgment/order.

3. The impugned order has been issued in reference of minutes of meeting of Seventh Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Committee (SSDEC) of U.P. held on 14.05.2025 vide which the deaffiliation of trades/units of the petitioners ITIs was recommended and sent to Director General, Training, Government of India.

4. The matter was discussed in the 23rd Meeting of Standing Committee on Accreditation and Affiliation (SCAA) held on

18.07.2025 and based on recommendations of SSDEC (State Skills Development and Entrepreneurship Committee), the SCAA has recommended deaffiliation of the petitioners ITIs with effect from Session 2025-26, which has been approved by the comptent authority.

5. The order states that the institutes and the State Directorate shall ensure that all trainees who have already enrolled in the previous sessions would complete the training duration but no fresh trainees would be admitted.

6. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced extensive submissions challenging the findings of inspection of their institutes, denial of opportunity of hearing to the institutes and defect the committee constituting inspection team, after advancing submissions at great length the learned counsel for the petitioners confined their submissions to the request that the existing students of the petitioners institutes be permitted to complete their course. They submitted that the petitioners would take fresh admissions only after applying for grant of affiliation a fresh. 3 WRIC No. 9893 of 2025

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they would not press the challenge to the legality of deaffiliation and they would raise their grievances before the Grievance Redressal Cell constituted by the authorities in this regard.

8. The learned counsel for the Union of India has also submitted that the Grievance Redressal Cell has been constituted in furtherance of directions issued in judgement and order dated

14.08.2023, issued by the Delhi High Court in Swami Private ITI Vs. Directorate General of Training: W.P. (C) 5863 of 2019 and other connected matters and in case the petitioners approach the cell for redressal of grievances their matter will be dealt with the law, rules as well as the guidelines.

9. Regarding completion of course of the students already admitted the learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the order dated 29.08.2025 provides that the trainees who were already enrolled in previous sessions would be permitted to complete their training duration. They have submitted that previous sessions would mean session prior to 2025-2026. They have submitted that students admitted by the petitioners for the course duration for session 2025-2027 will not be protected by this order.

10. Replying to the aforesaid objection the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the deaffiliation order has been issued on 29.08.2025 and prior to issuance of the said order the petitioners were entitled to take admission to the courses being run by them. The petitioners have taken admission for the two years course till 09.08.2025. The students who have already been admitted are entitled to complete the two years course of their duration.

11. A bare reading of the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 indicates that the order intends to protect the interest of the students who have already been admitted to the petitioners' institutes. The order does not prohibit students who have been prohibited in the year 2025 prior to issuance of order dated 4 WRIC No. 9893 of 2025

29.08.2025 from completing their course.

12. Neither the students can be said to be at fault in taking admissions to the petitioners' institutions while the institutions were affiliated to Direcotrate Genral of Training nor can the petitioners be said to be at fault in permitting the students while their institutes were duly affiliated.

13. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have raised concerns about the interests of the students admitted to the petitioners institutes stating that quality of education to be imparted to the students of the petitioners institutes stating the interests of the students would be adversely affected for want of adequate faculty, infrastructure and other paraphernalia which would adversely affect the quality of education received by them.

14. Although the impugned order states that the institutes and the State Directorate shall ensure that the trainees would complete their training duration the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that State Directorate has no role to play in ensuring the quality of education to be provided to the students and it is to be ensured by the Directorate General of Training. Affiliation norms of ITIs issued in the year 2018 provides that in case of deaffiliation-closure of institutes etc. the institute and the Directorate General of Training shall ensure that all trainees enrolled completes the training duration and no fresh admission should be taken. Even as per the aforesaid provisions contained in the affiliation norm the authorities have to ensure that all trainees enrolled complete the training duration. Therefore, the rider put in the impugned order that the trainees who were already enrolled in the previous sessions, does not appear to be reasonable and all trainees enrolled prior to issuance of the impugned order dated

29.08.2025 are entitled to complete the entire duration of their course.

15. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed in part. It is provided that the institutes, the State Directorate and DGT shall together 5 WRIC No. 9893 of 2025 ensure that the students who have already been admitted to the petitioners-institutes prior to 29.08.2025 shall be permitted to complete their course duration of two years and they shall be imparted proper education to enable them to complete the course. In case adequate faculty, infrastructure and other paraphernalia is not available in the petitioners institutes the students shall be shifted to some other nearby ITI where the requisite facilities are available. October 16, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi and Ms. Riya Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No.9893 of 2025, Sri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for petitioner in Writ-C No.9776 of 2025, Sri Varun Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel for Union of India, Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2 WRIC No. 9893 of 2025

2. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed challenging the validity of impugned order dated 29.08.2025, passed by the Government of India regarding de-affiliation order of petitioners Industrial Training Institutes. As such submissions in both the petitions were heard together and both the petitions are being decided together by a common judgment/order.

3. The impugned order has been issued in reference of minutes of meeting of Seventh Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Committee (SSDEC) of U.P. held on 14.05.2025 vide which the deaffiliation of trades/units of the petitioners ITIs was recommended and sent to Director General, Training, Government of India.

4. The matter was discussed in the 23rd Meeting of Standing Committee on Accreditation and Affiliation (SCAA) held on

18.07.2025 and based on recommendations of SSDEC (State Skills Development and Entrepreneurship Committee), the SCAA has recommended deaffiliation of the petitioners ITIs with effect from Session 2025-26, which has been approved by the comptent authority.

5. The order states that the institutes and the State Directorate shall ensure that all trainees who have already enrolled in the previous sessions would complete the training duration but no fresh trainees would be admitted.

6. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced extensive submissions challenging the findings of inspection of their institutes, denial of opportunity of hearing to the institutes and defect the committee constituting inspection team, after advancing submissions at great length the learned counsel for the petitioners confined their submissions to the request that the existing students of the petitioners institutes be permitted to complete their course. They submitted that the petitioners would take fresh admissions only after applying for grant of affiliation a fresh. 3 WRIC No. 9893 of 2025

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they would not press the challenge to the legality of deaffiliation and they would raise their grievances before the Grievance Redressal Cell constituted by the authorities in this regard.

8. The learned counsel for the Union of India has also submitted that the Grievance Redressal Cell has been constituted in furtherance of directions issued in judgement and order dated

14.08.2023, issued by the Delhi High Court in Swami Private ITI Vs. Directorate General of Training: W.P. (C) 5863 of 2019 and other connected matters and in case the petitioners approach the cell for redressal of grievances their matter will be dealt with the law, rules as well as the guidelines.

9. Regarding completion of course of the students already admitted the learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the order dated 29.08.2025 provides that the trainees who were already enrolled in previous sessions would be permitted to complete their training duration. They have submitted that previous sessions would mean session prior to 2025-2026. They have submitted that students admitted by the petitioners for the course duration for session 2025-2027 will not be protected by this order.

10. Replying to the aforesaid objection the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the deaffiliation order has been issued on 29.08.2025 and prior to issuance of the said order the petitioners were entitled to take admission to the courses being run by them. The petitioners have taken admission for the two years course till 09.08.2025. The students who have already been admitted are entitled to complete the two years course of their duration.

11. A bare reading of the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 indicates that the order intends to protect the interest of the students who have already been admitted to the petitioners' institutes. The order does not prohibit students who have been prohibited in the year 2025 prior to issuance of order dated 4 WRIC No. 9893 of 2025

29.08.2025 from completing their course.

12. Neither the students can be said to be at fault in taking admissions to the petitioners' institutions while the institutions were affiliated to Direcotrate Genral of Training nor can the petitioners be said to be at fault in permitting the students while their institutes were duly affiliated.

13. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have raised concerns about the interests of the students admitted to the petitioners institutes stating that quality of education to be imparted to the students of the petitioners institutes stating the interests of the students would be adversely affected for want of adequate faculty, infrastructure and other paraphernalia which would adversely affect the quality of education received by them.

14. Although the impugned order states that the institutes and the State Directorate shall ensure that the trainees would complete their training duration the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that State Directorate has no role to play in ensuring the quality of education to be provided to the students and it is to be ensured by the Directorate General of Training. Affiliation norms of ITIs issued in the year 2018 provides that in case of deaffiliation-closure of institutes etc. the institute and the Directorate General of Training shall ensure that all trainees enrolled completes the training duration and no fresh admission should be taken. Even as per the aforesaid provisions contained in the affiliation norm the authorities have to ensure that all trainees enrolled complete the training duration. Therefore, the rider put in the impugned order that the trainees who were already enrolled in the previous sessions, does not appear to be reasonable and all trainees enrolled prior to issuance of the impugned order dated

29.08.2025 are entitled to complete the entire duration of their course.

15. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed in part. It is provided that the institutes, the State Directorate and DGT shall together 5 WRIC No. 9893 of 2025 ensure that the students who have already been admitted to the petitioners-institutes prior to 29.08.2025 shall be permitted to complete their course duration of two years and they shall be imparted proper education to enable them to complete the course. In case adequate faculty, infrastructure and other paraphernalia is not available in the petitioners institutes the students shall be shifted to some other nearby ITI where the requisite facilities are available. October 16, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench