Dismissed

Jang Bahadur Private Iti v. Directorate General of Training (Dgt)

Delhi HC16 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/5584/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed belatedly by an ITI seeking affiliation for the 2018-19 session. The Court held the petition an abuse of process and ruled that courts cannot substitute their view for expert bodies on educational eligibility unless the decision is perverse or contrary to law.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed as it is an abuse of the process of Court.

Jang Bahadur Private Iti Vs Directorate General of… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

#64

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment delivered on: 16.07.2018

¶4

W.P.(C) 5584/2018

¶5

JANG BAHADUR PRIVATE ITI

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING (DGT) ..... Respondent

¶9

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Murari Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

¶14

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instituted on behalf of the petitioner, belatedly assails a decision taken by the Directorate General of Training (DGT), Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of India, and essentially seeks a mandatory injunction, directing the latter to grant affiliation to the former for

¶15

W.P.(C) 5584/2018

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

the academic session 2018-19.

¶18

2. The substratum of the present relief is predicated on an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.11.2017 in LPA No.515/2017 and other connected matters, whereby the official respondent herein was directed to review 663 eligible pending applications, rejected by them, in accordance with law, before the commencement of the academic session i.e. latest by 30.06.2018.

¶19

3. It is an admitted position that the impugned decision was rendered by

¶20

the Quality Commission of India on 19.07.2017, prior to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.11.2017, which is extracted

¶21

hereinbelow:-

¶22

“7.09.2017 ITI Application Alert for Application No.A16001092 Dear Applicant,

¶23

This is in connection with your application submitted on QCI online portal for opening of new ITI/addition of trades and or Units in existing ITI/re-affiliation during the session 2015-16 & 2016-17.

¶24

You are aware that for grant of NABET-QCI accreditation, you were mandatorily required to fulfil the norms/guidelines as stipulated by NCVT/DGT/NABET.

¶25

After submission of ‘acceptance’ for site visit on the portal, the site assessment was undertaken to your ITI on the scheduled date. During the site assessment the QCI assessor observed certain NCs. As per the stipulated procedure already communicated to you vide QCI’s earlier mails in the matter, you were required to reply to the site visit NCs within 3 days, for closure by assessor, failing which, your ITI application shall not be considered for further processing and

¶26

W.P.(C) 5584/2018

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

the same shall stand rejected.

¶29

However, it has been observed that the response submitted by you in respect of your NCs in the portal within the stipulated time, is not in conformance to NCVT/DGT norms. Accordingly, the assessor has not closed your site assessment NCs.

¶30

In view of above, your application stands rejected and no further action shall be taken by QCI on the said application.

¶31

In case of any queries, please email us at [email protected] call at our Toll Free Number 18003000-5348.

¶32

Best Regards, QCI.”

¶33

4. It is an admitted position that, the petitioner in LPA 515/2017 and other connected matters, was not a party before the Division Bench, in the proceedings in which the said order dated 14.11.2017 was rendered. In fact, the petitioner assailed the order dated 19.07.2017 by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.10260/2017, titled as ‘ Jang Bahadur Private ITI vs. Directorate General of Training & Anr. ’, which came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 20.11.2017, whereby this Court, in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench directed that if the name of the petitioner was in the list of the said 663 pending applications, they would be considered, in accordance with law. However, since as aforenoted, the petitioner’s name was not in the said list of 663 institutions, their application

¶34

W.P.(C) 5584/2018

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

for review/reconsideration was not taken up and the impugned order holds the field.

¶37

5. The present petition, which seeks to impugn the order dated 19.07.2017, is, therefore, an abuse of process of Court. Furthermore, having slept on their rights, if any, for almost a year, the petitioner now seeks a peremptory direction to the respondent to process his application afresh, expeditiously, and to permit him to conduct classes for the academic session 2018-19, admissions for which have already commenced. The same is manifestly impermissible.

¶38

6. Before parting, it is incumbent upon this Court to point out that the scope of judicial review in relation to expert bodies dealing with the educational matters is within a narrow compass. The Court can interfere with the legality of the opinion rendered by such expert bodies, but cannot substitute its opinion for that of the expert bodies in relation to essential prequalifications requisite under the law, unless and until the decision of an expert body is manifest with wednesbury unreasonableness. In other words, the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the expert body, on requirements pertaining to eligibility of educational institutions, for affiliation/recognition, unless they have acted contrary to law or their

¶39

W.P.(C) 5584/2018

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

decision is characterized by perversity.

¶42

7. In this view of the matter, the present petition being devoid of any

¶43

merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶44

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

¶45

JULY 16, 2018
dn

¶46

W.P.(C) 5584/2018

¶47

Page 5 of 5

Jang Bahadur Private Iti v. Directorate General of Training (Dgt)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jang Bahadur Private Iti v. Directorate General of Training (Dgt)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

President'S Secretariat Vs R.K. Jain

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Zuber & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shivraj Krishna Gupta Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dr.Santosh Sangar Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Gyanender Kumar Vs Land and Building Deparment

Anurag Gupta (Minor) through Raghupati Gupta Vs Mayur Public School & Anr.

Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs Honble Lt Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Seema Sharma Vs Delhi Development Authority

Raj Gupta Vs Puneet Kumar Goel

Praveen Kumar Alias Prashant Vs Anurag Dass

Vanshika Sachar Vs Vice Chancellor , University of Delhi

Royal Institute of Science and Management Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Ors.

Gyan Deep College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.