Sudha Pradeep Private Iti vs Directorate General Of Training on 12 January, 2022

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sudha Pradeep Private Iti vs Directorate General Of Training on 12 January, 2022

Bench: Prateek Jalan

                    $~16 & 17 (2022 Cause List)
                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +           W.P.(C) 6979/2021
                                SUDHA PRADEEP PRIVATE ITI                              ..... Petitioner
                                                  versus
                                DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING                     ..... Respondent

                    +           W.P.(C) 6981/2021
                                PS PRIVATE ITI                                         ..... Petitioner
                                                  versus
                                DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING                     ..... Respondent

                    Present:-           Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                                        Ms. Harithi Kambiri, Advocate for Mr. Naginder Benipal,
                                        Senior Panel Counsel for UOI & Mr. Harjeet Singh
                                        Sachdeva, Advocate for DGT.
                    CORAM:
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

                                               ORDER

% 12.01.2022 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The petitioners applied for affiliation to the Directorate General of Training ["DGT"] in various trades. Both their applications were rejected at a meeting of the Recommendation Committee of the DGT dated 15.09.2020. The observations of the Recommendation Committee in both cases are identical, which read as follows:-

"Not recommended due to No-tool list with/without deficiency not mentioned by the ITI and Principal certificate not attached. ITI has to apply on online affiliation portal next session."

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:12.01.2022 22:10:28 W.P.(C) 6979/2021 & W.P.(C) 6981/2021 Page 1 of 2

2. While the meaning of these remarks is not entirely clear, it appears that the rejection is based upon reports of the Joint Inspection Committee which found certain deficiencies and did not recommend the petitioner- institutions for affiliation.

3. Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the inspection reports were not provided to the institutions concerned and the institutions had no opportunity at any stage to meet the deficiencies found against them. He submits that the principles of natural justice require the material to be supplied to the petitioners and for the petitioners to be given an opportunity to make a representation prior to the application(s) being rejected.

4. Ms. Harithi Kambiri, learned counsel for the DGT, submits that the inspection is conducted at the level of the State Directorate and it is for the State Directorates to give the institution an opportunity to respond.

5. The DGT is directed to place on record the affiliation norms and particularly to state on affidavit the procedure whereunder the institution is given an opportunity to respond to the findings of the Inspection Committee prior to the DGT taking a decision against the institution. Affidavit be filed within two weeks.

6. List on 17.02.2022.

PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 12, 2022 'pv' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:12.01.2022 22:10:28 W.P.(C) 6979/2021 & W.P.(C) 6981/2021 Page 2 of 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders