Delhi High Court - Orders
Shanti Devi Private Iti vs Directorate General Of Training & Anr on 12 September, 2023
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
1
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8857/2023
SHANTI DEVI PRIVATE ITI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharawat and Mr.Ashok
Kumar, Advocates.
Versus
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, SPC with Ms.Usha
Jamnal and Mr.Krishan Kumar, Advocates with
Mr.Abhishek Khana, G.P. for R-1.
Mr.Abhinav Mukerji, Mr.Bihu Sharma and
Mr.Mohit Prasad, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 12.09.2023
1. The petitioner-institution in the instant writ petition seeks to challenge the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 19.01.2023 issued by respondent no.1/ Directorate General of Training (DGT), whereby, the application of the petitioner-institution for affiliation for four units in Electrician Trade under MSTI category has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner- institution is situated in a served block.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution submits that the policy of the DGT dated 26.02.2019 indicates that only institutions that have been given 'in principle' approval for affiliation as per the new affiliation norms, 2018 can be considered for the purpose of This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:15 2 deciding whether the block is served or unserved, meaning thereby, that if an ITI is already functioning in a block, prior to coming into force of the new affiliation norms, the same would not be treated to be a served area. Learned counsel therefore, submits that in the instant case, there is nothing on record to indicate that any other institution is in operation in the concerned block as per the new affiliation norms, and therefore, the decision taken by the DGT is illegal and improper.
3. Learned counsel has also emphasizes on Clause 6 of the policy dated 26.02.2019 to indicate that the relaxation of the norms would be applicable for maximum two ITIs in the particular unserved block. The only requirement being that both the ITIs opt for different trades. He, then, contends that in the instant case, the policy dated 26.02.2019 has not been construed appropriately by the DGT and the impugned decision has been taken on non-existent grounds, in violation of the said policy.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/State Directorate submits that there are four blocks in Nalanda District. The block where the petitioner intends to set up the institution is known as Tharthari block. According to learned counsel for the State Directorate, except for Katari Sarai block, all other blocks, including Tharthari are served blocks. The State Directorate has taken a categorical stand in their counter-affidavit that the policy dated 26.02.2019 in no way evinces that only an ITI that has been granted affiliation as per the new affiliation norms shall be regarded for the purpose of ascertaining whether a block is served or unserved. Therefore, it is submitted that since an ITI i.e. Sai Private ITI is already functioning in Tharthari block, the concerned block is a served block.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DGT opposes the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:15 3 submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner-institution and he states that the impugned decision has been taken strictly in accordance with the policy dated 26.02.2019 and after due consideration of all the relevant factors.
6. He further submits that if the impugned decision is perused carefully, the same indicates that the petitioner-institution was specifically called upon to furnish the NOC from the concerned State Directorate with respect to the fact that the block in question was an unserved block. Learned counsel further points out from the impugned decision dated 19.01.2023 that in response to the aforesaid requirement, the petitioner-institution did not submit any satisfactory reply, rather the petitioner-institution contended that it is not the responsibility of the petitioner-institution to satisfy the DGT with respect to the aforesaid aspect.
7. Learned counsel then, contends that the petitioner-institution had earlier approached this court and the decision of the DGT was set aside only on the ground of non-issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) and when the SCN has been issued pursuant to the directions of this court, after considering all the aspects, the decision taken afresh does not require any interference.
8. With respect to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the onus of furnishing the NOC with respect to the status of the block does not lie on the petitioner-institution. He relies on the policy dated 07.10.2019 and the first order of rejection passed by the DGT dated 19.10.2022 to impress upon this court that it is the State Directorate that verifies whether the area is served or unserved and the DGT itself decides applications pursuant to such verification and information as This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:15 4 provided by the State Directorate.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. It is to be noted that this is the second round of litigation in this matter. Earlier, in terms of order dated 19.10.2022, the DGT did not recommend the case of the petitioner-institution for grant of affiliation. The reason recorded in terms of communication dated 19.10.2022 was that as per the State Directorate, block Tharthari is a served block and hence, the ITI was not recommended for affiliation. The said decision came to be challenged by the petitioner-institution in W.P.(C)16725/2022.
11. This court passed the following directions vide order dated 12.12.2022:-
"3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The respondent will issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of four weeks, to which the reply will be filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.
(ii) After the receipt of reply, the respondents will pass an order within a period of four weeks, a copy of which will be provided to the petitioners."
9. It is thus, seen that in pursuance of the directions passed by this court, the SCN was issued to the petitioner-institution and the petitioner-institution submitted the reply thereto. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner-institution, the impugned decision dated 19.01.2023 was taken.
10. Paragraph nos.4 and 6 of the impugned decision dated 19.01.2023 read as under:-
"4. Whereas, in response of SCN notice issued upon the ITI, the ITI vide reply dated 02.01.2023 furnished its submissions and the same is considered by the DGT with the following stands:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:15 5 ITI stand in reply dated 02.01.2023 DGT stand to SCN dated 20.12.2022 issued by the DGT That at the time of application for That the Petitioner while filing the setting up ShantiDevi Pvt. IT/ under application seeking affiliation has MST/ scheme, the TharthariBlock in not filed any documentary evidence the Nalanda district in the State of regarding the area is unserved and Biharwas falling under unserved the ITI has failed to produce the block. same on demanding such certificate after issuance of SCN.
That Registration Ref. Code: - That the Issuance of Ref. Code does TMP10209PR1581521826 (MST/) not guarantee the Affiliation.
was issued to the Shanti Devi Pvt. Granting of Affiliation is subject to
/Tl under MST/ scheme forsetting up fulfilling all the criteria as
IT/ in the Tharthari Block of the mentioned in NCVT Norms 2018
Nalanda district in the State of and subsequent notification,
Bihar. circulars etc.
That at the no point of the time That it is the duty of ITI to produce
either DGT or State Directorate of the evidence regarding the area is
the Govt. of Bihar has informed Served or Unserved or any other
the management of Shanti Devi documents demanded at any stage
Pvt. ITI block that the said block is of application. Further, the
served one, hence, setting up an definition of unserved block is
ITI under MSTI scheme in not given under the Office
applicable. Memorandum dated oath March
2019. Bare perusal of the
definition would also reveal that
the list of unserved block is
maintained by the Local
Government Directory.
That LOI dated 10/07/2022 was That the Issuance of LOI does not
issued by the State Directorate, guarantee the Affiliation. Granting
Govt. of Bihar giving one year time of Affiliation is subject to fulfilling
for submission of information to the all the criteria as mentioned in
Shanti Devi Pvt. ITI in the said NCVT Norms 2018 and subsequent
block. notification, circulars etc. (Refer
1.5 Accreditation Process of NCVT
Norms 2018}
That designated joint inspection That the deficiency in the
team of DGT and State Directorate application may be communicated
has jointly inspected Shanti at any stage of the Affiliation
DeviPvt. IT/ on dated. 26/07/2022 process. ITI shall comply with all
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:15 6 for affiliation undersaid scheme at the latest NCVT norms. In case of that time even the inspecting team any violation, appropriate action has not point out the matter of shall be initiated. "(Refer Page no. served block to the management of 17 of NCVT Norms 2018) this situation.
That it would be sheer injustice to That in the interest of quality ask the management of the Shanti training and to ensure the quality Devi Pvt. IT/ at this stage to get training to the Trainees, the DGT is NOC signed and issued by the duty bound to ensure that all the Director Employment & Training criteria as envisaged in the NCVT indicating that the said IT/ is falling norms and subsequent under unserved area. It is as if, Notifications, circulars etc. are getting the certificate inculpability fulfilled and being the governing from the culprit. body of the training education the DGT has the right to ask documents for verification at any time or at any stage of application.
6. Whereas, the benefit of "Multi Skill Training Institute (MSTI)" are available for the applicant ITI which is lying under unserved area;
whereas despite giving one more opportunity via Show Cause Notice Dated 20.12.2022 to produce the certificate issued by from state authorities ITI has failed to produce the certificate indicating that ITI is falling under unserved area."
[Emphasis supplied]
11. It is pertinent to establish the distinction between a served and an unserved block, based on the applicable policy and norms of the DGT. For the sake of clarity, the relevant portion of the policy dated 26.02.2019 is reproduced hereunder:
"1. An unserved block is one, which is listed on latest Local Government Directory (LGD) & does not have a single functional Govt. or Pvt. ITI."
12. The definition has also been reiterated in the OM dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) as under:
"1. An unserved block is one, which is listed on latest Local Government Directory (LGD) (www.lgd.gov.in) which is maintained by Ministry of Panchayati Raj) & does not have a single functional Govt. or Pvt. ITI. The LG directory maintains the complete list of latest States, Districts, Sub-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:15 7 Districts, Blocks and villages across country. For Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, it has been observed that the LG Directory shows the list of Mandals in the districts, rather than traditional blocks/tehsils. Thus the list of unserved blocks/tehsils in both the states will be finalized after discussion with these States."
13. A perusal of the aforesaid explanations clearly shows that for a block to be considered as an unserved block, two conditions have to be fulfilled:
First, that it is listed on the latest Local Government Directory (LGD) and second, that it does not have a single functional Govt. or Pvt. ITI. By logical extension, the same would mean that fulfilment of one condition alone cannot be construed to mean that the block is an unserved block. Even if the concerned block is listed on the LGD, it should not have any functional institution as well for it to be considered as an unserved block.
14. It is seen that there is an existing institution in the concerned block that was granted affiliation in the year 2018 i.e. prior to the enforcement of the new affiliation norms. Learned counsel for the petitioner-institution has argued that as per Clause 2 of the policy dated 26.02.2019, the existing institution, which was granted affiliation as per the earlier norms, cannot be considered for the purpose of determining whether the block is a served or unnerved block. Clause 2 of the policy reads as under:
2. If an ITI has been given 'in principal' approval for affiliation (Stage -2) as per new affiliation norms, then that block would not be treated as unserved. Also if the building of any ITI is in progress from any funds (Central or State Govt) in a block, then that block would be treated as served.
15. It is to be noted that the policy dated 26.02.2019 relates to 'Relaxation of affiliation norms for establishing ITIs in unserved blocks'. It is in this context that the conditions of the policy have to be understood. Clause 2 specifically applies to new institutions, that have applied for affiliation as This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:15 8 per the new norms and have been granted 'in principle' approval, and hence will not be considered to be in unserved blocks. The same cannot be interpreted to mean that the policy is to be applied to the exclusion of the already established institutions in the concerned block. The fact remains that the block has an already functioning institution, and hence the block cannot be treated to be an unserved block.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-institution has also argued that as per the list of unserved blocks (Annexure P-5) published by the DGT on its website, the concerned block finds place as an unserved area. However, this court finds that the list relied upon by him, does not provide any clear information as to whether it is the latest list of blocks, unserved or otherwise. In any case, when the respondent-authorities have categorically stated that the block is a served block, unless the converse is proved conclusively, there is no reason to disbelieve the stand taken by the respondents. The fact remains that the petitioner-institution has not submitted any document to prove that the block in question was an unserved block, even when specifically asked by the respondents to submit an NOC to that effect.
17. The argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner-institution that the petitioner-institution is not under an obligation to satisfy the respondent with respect to the status of the concerned block cannot be countenanced. The relevant clause of the policy dated 07.10.2019, relied upon by the petitioner-institution to further his argument, reads as under:
"2. iv Institute should apply to State Directorate whereas State Directorate will verify the institute in the respective block and forward compiled list to DGT for Standing Committee Inspection."
18. The petitioner-institution seems to possess an erroneous This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:15 9 understanding of the affiliation norms and applicable policy of the respondents. The aforesaid clause clearly states that the State Directorate shall conduct the different levels of verification of the applicant-institutions before forwarding the applications to the DGT. It cannot be construed to mean that it is the State Directorate that has to verify the concerned block's status. The policy dated 02.06.2019 patently specifies the conditions for a block to be unserved and is made publicly available to all the applicant- institutions, for their information.
19. Moreover, when an application has been rejected on the ground that the concerned block is a served block, and the applicant-institution has been specifically asked to provide an NOC proving otherwise, it is incumbent upon the institution to provide the concerned document to indicate that the block in question, on the date of consideration of the institution's application was an unserved block. In the present case, the petitioner-institution chose to blatantly decline to furnish any information with respect to the aforesaid aspect, stating therein that it was not their responsibility.
20. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that on the date of passing of the order or date of the decision taken by the DGT, no documents were produced to indicate that the block in question remained as an unserved block. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the opinion that the decision of the DGT cannot be interfered with.
21. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2023/MJ/rg This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:15