AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sl.
No","ITI’s name
MIS
Code/Application
Number","Trades/Units
sought for
affiliation","ITI propose
Units","Units recommended
by SCI","Remarks by Scrutiny
Committee","Remarks by
Recommendation
Committee
2,"Takshila Private
ITI, Near
M.L.S.M.
College
Sundernagar,
District Mandi,
H.P. 175018
PR02000211","Electrician
(NSQF)",3(1+1+1),3(1+1+1),"ITI needs to upgrade
to 4 trades for the
session 2021","Not
recommended
Since ITI is more
than 5 years old,
should apply for
minimum 4 for
affiliation by
session 2021
respondent No.3. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed/applied well within the stipulated time. Before ascertaining the correctness and validity,,,,,,
of the reasons given in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, it would be apt to take note of some of the relevant provisions of the norms of",,,,,,
affiliation prevalent in the year, 2018.",,,,,,
a) As per Section 2, applicants are required to submit the application through the web portal, the format whereof is provided in Annexures-2, 2(a) and",,,,,,
The instructions with regard thereto provide interalia as follows:,,,,,,
ITI’s can be opened for minimum of 4 trades and minimum of 1 units per shift per trade. ITIs with 3 and above star ratings on NCVT portal",,,,,,
would be appreciated to add more units after two years/one year depending upon duration of trade.â€,,,,,,
b) Clause 3.1.2 deals with applications for additional trades/units, which reads as under:",,,,,,
I. No increase in intake shall be given to ITIs where FIR, CBI or CVC, any other Investigation agency/punitive action is initiated by DGT for any",,,,,,
violation in the norms and standards and where enquiries are pending. Applications of such institutions shall be placed before the NCVT,,,,,,
Subcommittee for taking appropriate action.,,,,,,
II. The ITIs shall mandatorily opt for “grading†before addition of trades/units in existing institutes.,,,,,,
III. Addition of trades/units in existing ITIs shall be permitted only if the ITI is complying with latest NCVT norms at least for additional,,,,,,
trades/units.â€,,,,,,
c) Clause 3.7.1 deals with renewal of affiliation, and reads as follows:",,,,,,
“All the institutes shall be re-affiliated for every 5 years from date of affiliation. The institutes shall submit online application at least one year prior,,,,,,
to expiry of affiliation/completion of five years of affiliation.â€,,,,,,
d) Clause 4.2 contains transitionary provisions for implementation of the 2018 Norms. Clause 4.2.3 thereof is substantially similar to Clause 3.1.2 as,,,,,,
has been taken note herein above.,,,,,,
In the case at hand, Sub-committee of NCVT after having inspected the premises has already recommended the case of the petitioner for affiliation",,,,,,
on 4th additional unit in the Electrician Trade and similarly, it is none of the case of the respondents that necessary affiliation of 4th additional unit in",,,,,,
Electrician Trade is not being given to the petitioner-Institute on account of FIR or any other investigation pending adjudication, rather precise case of",,,,,,
the respondents is that as per current policy, it is mandatory to apply for re-affiliation to those ITIs, which are affiliated for more than five years and",,,,,,
ITIs should have minimum four trades for affiliation.,,,,,,
Though at the cost of repetition, it may be again taken note that at no point of time, petitioner-Institute has applied for additional four trades, rather it",,,,,,
simply prayed for affiliation of 4th additional unit in already existing Electrician Trade and as such, reason otherwise given in the impugned order dated",,,,,,
3.2.2021, rejecting case of the petitioner, is not sustainable being totally contrary to the 2018 Norms, but the moot question, which requires to be",,,,,,
determined by this Court in the instant proceedings, is that whether existing institutes are/were required to upgrade to a minimum four trades before",,,,,,
applying for affiliation of additional unit in already existing trade. Before exploring answer to the aforesaid question, this Court could lay its hand to",,,,,,
communication dated 22.1.2020, addressed by the Directorate General of Training to all State Directors of training, which reads as under:",,,,,,
As aware, every Institute affiliated with NCVT is to be re affiliated for every 05 years from date of affiliation and the Institute has to submit",,,,,,
online application at least one year prior to expiry of affiliation/completion of five years of affiliation. Accordingly, DGT is receiving",,,,,,
number of applications from the ITIs for renewal of afflation,,,,,,
In this connection, it is to inform that due to administrative reasons the DGT will take up these applications applied for re-affiliation in",,,,,,
due course of time. However, status of affiliation of the particular ITI will remain the same until ITI is de-affiliated. Hence, the competent",,,,,,
authority has decided that ITIs will be allowed to take admissions without insisting them for reaffiliation until further orders, subject to",,,,,,
fulfilment of other criteria. Unless otherwise stated, no ITI should send applications for Re-affiliation at this Directorate General.",,,,,,
The ITIs are advised to kindly visit the NCVT MIS Portal and follow the instructions published thereon on time to time.â€,,,,,,
It is quite apparent from the aforesaid communication that at present, status quo continues in respect of institutions, which are more than five years",,,,,,
old and as of today, they can take admissions without applying for re-affiliation. In view of the aforesaid clarification issued by the Directorate General",,,,,,
of Training, case of the petitioner-Institute is required to be decided without reference to the requirement of re-affiliation. First reason given by the",,,,,,
respondents while passing impugned order is that it is mandatory to apply for re-affiliation to those ITIs, which are affiliated for more than five years,",,,,,,
is not at all sustainable in view of the clarification issued by the Directorate General of Training. As far as second reason given in the impugned order,,,,,,
that as per DGT norms and Guidelines, ITIs should have minimum four trades for affiliation, is not plausible at all because that cannot be applied while",,,,,,
considering case of the petitioner for affiliation of additional unit in already existing trade in the institute. Norms of 2018, if read in conjunction, no",,,,,,
where suggest that already existing ITIs are barred from applying for increase in the number of units if they do not have minimum four trades. Clause,,,,,,
2.1, as has been reproduced herein above, specifically deals with opening of new ITIs. As per this norm, ITIs can be opened for minimum four trades",,,,,,
and minimum unit per shift per trades, but definitely there is no mention in the aforesaid clause that already existing ITIs shall be under obligation to",,,,,,
add new trades to make them eligible for running ITI courses. Clause 3.1.2 as referred herein above, specifically deals with application for additional",,,,,,
trades/units. As per this clause, no increase in intake shall be given to those ITIs against whom, some FIR or any other Investigation stands initiated by",,,,,,
DGT on account of violation in the norms and standards. Application for additional trades/units at the first instance shall be considered by sub-,,,,,,
committee of NCVT for taking appropriate action. Clause 3.1.2 (iii) provides that addition of trades/units in existing ITIs shall be permitted only if the,,,,,,
ITIs are complying with latest NCVT norms at least for additional trades/units Clause 3.7.1 provides for renewal of affiliation. As per the aforesaid,,,,,,
clause, all the institutes shall be re-affiliated for every 5 years from date of affiliation and in this regard, institutes concerned shall submit online",,,,,,
application at least one year prior to the expiry of affiliation/completion of five years of affiliation.,,,,,,
Though Mr. Rajinder Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4, vehemently argued that party",,,,,,
seeking permission to add trades/units is under obligation to comply with latest NCVT norms, wherein it has been provided that ITIs can be opened for",,,,,,
minimum of four trades and minimum of one unit per trade, but we are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of learned Central Government",,,,,,
Standing Counsel for the reason that latest NCVT norms nowhere cast substantive obligation, if any, upon the existing institute to establish at least",,,,,,
four trades before seeking affiliation for additional trades/units in already existing trade. The reference in these instructions is to apply with latest,,,,,,
NCVT norms. In the absence of norms requiring institute having four trades, the instructions do not support the case of the respondents. Bare reading",,,,,,
of norms, as have been taken note herein above, clearly suggests that an institute seeking affiliation of 4th additional unit in already existing trade is",,,,,,
required to comply with latest norms regarding infrastructure etc. Condition with regard to compliance of latest NCVT norms incorporated in the 2018,,,,,,
norms is not intended to address the minimum number of trades, which one institute may have, but it specifically indicates towards the standards and",,,,,,
infrastructure an institute must have while seeking affiliation for additional unit in already existing trade.,,,,,,
High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 19.5.2021, rendered in W.P.(C) Nos. 94 and 99 of 2021 titled, Maya Devi Private ITI v. Directorate",,,,,,
General of Training and Saraswati Private ITI v. Directorate General of training, has also dealt with same proposition of law and has held as under:",,,,,,
“12. The other requirements of the 2018 Norms do not appear to me to put such a condition upon any old institution, so as to bar them",,,,,,
from applying for increase in the number of units if they do not have a minimum of four trades. Each of the clauses cited on behalf of the,,,,,,
DGT is dealt with below:,,,,,,
(a) Clause 2.1 referred to hereinabove clearly refers only to new institutes. This is evident from the fact that this provision forms part of",,,,,,
Chapter 2, which is titled “Accreditation and Affiliation Process for Establishing of ITI(s)â€. The quoted stipulation also expressly refers",,,,,,
to the conditions upon which ITI(s) can be “openedâ€.,,,,,,
(b)As far as Clauses 3.1.2 and 4.2.3 are concerned, the condition stipulated for permission to add trades/units is that the institution should",,,,,,
be in compliance with latest NCVT Norms for addition of additional trade/units. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for,,,,,,
the DGT that this introduces a substantive obligation upon the existing institutes to establish at least four trades, if they are to be granted",,,,,,
permission for additional trades/units. The reference in these instructions, is to compliance with the latest NCVT Norms. In the absence of a",,,,,,
norm requiring the existing institutions to have four trades, the instruction does not assist the case of the DGT at all. On a plain reading, it",,,,,,
appears that the stipulation in fact requires the institute to comply with the latest norms regarding infrastructure etc. for the additional,,,,,,
trades/units being permitted. The condition is intended not to address the minimum number of trades which the institutes must have, but the",,,,,,
standards and infrastructure that must be available in the institute, for the additional trade or units which it proposes to establish.""",,,,,,
This position is supported by reference to the minutes of two meetings of the DGT’s committees to which my attention has been,,,,,,
drawn. The Recommendation Committee of the DGT at a meeting on 09.10.2019 [Agenda Item no. 9.5.7] recommended as follows:,,,,,,
“Agenda Item no. 9.5. 7,,,,,,
REVIEW OF NORMS & CONDITIONS I.R.O. TRADE CAPACITY OF ITI(s) FOR SEEKING AFFILIATION,,,,,,
It was informed that as per existing Affiliation norms, ITI(s) have to apply for minimum 4 trades for seeking affiliation. In some of cases, it",,,,,,
was noticed that ITI(s) have applied for four trades but not having sufficient infrastructure against the 4 trades. In such cases, due to",,,,,,
deficiencies in infrastructure, this committee had granted affiliation only in two/ three trades subject to condition that the ITI should fulfil",,,,,,
the deficiency for the remaining trades within two months.,,,,,,
The committee opined to issue clarifications in connection to the above norms/guidelines that ITI(s) have to get affiliation of at least in 4,,,,,,
different trades. In case, ITI does not have sufficient infrastructure, T&E etc. against the minimum 4 trades, neither partial nor conditional",,,,,,
affiliation would be granted. Committee also advised to seek approval of the competent authority before issuing necessary clarifications.â€,,,,,,
(Emphasis supplied.),,,,,,
The aforesaid decision was further considered in a meeting of the Committee held on 11.12.2020 [Agenda no. 17.9] wherein it was,,,,,,
decided as follows:,,,,,,
“Agenda No 17.9: ITIs with minimum 4 trades-uniform policy on PAN India basis As decided in 9th Recommendation Committee meeting,,,,,,
held on 9th October, 2019 vide agenda item 9.5.7 that New ITIs shall get affiliated for minimum 4 trades, however many existing ITIs are",,,,,,
still running with less than 4 trades. Hence it is proposed that all ITIs shall run with minimum 4 trades, accordingly It is proposed the",,,,,,
following:,,,,,,
New ITIs shall get affiliated for minimum 4 trades, no partial affiliation will be granted.",,,,,,
Existing ITI with less than 4 trades which are more than 5 years old shall get affiliated for minimum four trades by next admission session,",,,,,,
failing which admissions to such ITIs will not be allowed in Future sessions.,,,,,,
Recommendation committee:,,,,,,
As per the Affiliation norms 2018, it is existing rule and shall be continued, as per the existing orders. However, for 2nd point the",,,,,,
subcommittee will examine.â€,,,,,,
(Emphasis supplied),,,,,,
Although reliance has been placed upon these minutes by both sides, I am of the view that they clearly indicate that even in the",,,,,,
interpretation of the DGT, existing institutes were not required by virtue of the 2018 Norms to upgrade to a minimum of four trades. The",,,,,,
meeting of 09.10.2019 refers to the requirement in the existing affiliation norms that ITI(s) have to apply for a minimum four trades for,,,,,,
seeking affiliation. The implication is that this agenda item was concerned with applications of new institutes and not of existing institutes.,,,,,,
Indeed, the opening words of the minutes of the meeting of 11.12.2020 quoted above, reflect the same understanding of the",,,,,,
Recommendation Committee itself.,,,,,,
At the meeting of 11.12.2020, however, the Recommendation Committee proposed that all ITI(s) should run with a minimum of four",,,,,,
trades and made the two recommendations quoted above. After noting the aforesaid proposal, the Committee specifically decided that the",,,,,,
existing rule of the 2018 Norms would be continued as per the existing orders, and the second proposal would be examined by the Sub -",,,,,,
Committee. These minutes place the matter beyond the pale of doubt. It was DGT’s own interpretation that existing ITI(s) are, under the",,,,,,
existing norms, permitted to run with less than four trades, and a proposal was made to establish a uniform rule that ITI(s) would not be",,,,,,
permitted to run with less than four trades. It was also decided to refer this issue to a Sub-Committee. The DGT has not suggested that the,,,,,,
proposal was accepted by the Sub-Committee or that any final decision was taken. Such a proposal therefore remains just that, and does",,,,,,
not constitute a binding decision which entitles the DGT to require affiliation with four trades, in respect of existing institutions, without",,,,,,
notifying any fresh norms.,,,,,,
Besides above, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing judgment dated 8.1.2021, passed in earlier petition i.e. CWP No. 6128 of 2020, filed",,,,,,
by the petitioner, has already rejected the reasons, wherein same stand was taken by the respondents that case of the petitioner for affiliation for 4",,,,,,
additional units in Electrician Trade cannot be approved on account of non-reaffiliation after five years from the date of affiliation. Since aforesaid,,,,,,
finding rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in petition (supra) filed by the petitioner was never laid challenge, same has attained finality and as such,",,,,,,
same is binding upon the respondents. However, in the case at hand, respondents ignoring the aforesaid categorical finding recorded by the court has",,,,,,
again rejected the case of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 3.2.2021. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under:-,,,,,,
It is evident that 4th Base Unit in Electrician Trade in petitioner institute was not approved by respondent No.3 on the ground that,,,,,,
‘petitioner ITI was more than 5 years old and should apply for minimum 4 for affiliation by session 2021’. The reasons for rejecting,,,,,,
the case of the petitioner, as contained in the impugned communication (extracted above) are not clearly worded. It does not stand to",,,,,,
reason that an ITI in existence for five years should apply for minimum 4 for affiliation and having not applied for “minimum 4 for,,,,,,
affiliationâ€, its case for affiliation of 4th additional unit in Electrician Trade cannot be approved.",,,,,,
 3(ii) It is the case of the petitioner that it had applied for additional 4th base Unit in Electrician Trade pursuant to generation of link on,,,,,,
the webportal of respondent No.3 before the cut-off date. Petitioner has also placed on record the receipt in lieu of deposit of fees. The,,,,,,
petitioner has also appended documents with the writ petition reflecting that in all the three stages of inspection, the duly constituted Sub-",,,,,,
Committee of NCVT had recommended its case for addition of 4th base Unit in Electrician Trade.,,,,,,
3(iii) Respondent No.3 in its response to the writ petition has tried to come clear by advancing following reasons for rejection of,,,,,,
petitioner’s case:-,,,,,,
 “2. That the Directorate General of Training (DGT) published the Affiliation Norms for ITI(s) Year-2018, whereby, some old norms",,,,,,
have been revised and updated. As per these latest norms, ITI(s) are required to get affiliation for minimum 04 trades and minimum one unit",,,,,,
per trade. Moreover, all the affiliated ITI(s) are required to get re-affiliation for every years from the date of affiliation. The institutes are",,,,,,
required to submit online application at least one year prior to expiry of affiliation/completion of five years of affiliation. Copy of Affiliation,,,,,,
Norms for ITIs year 2018 are annexed as annexure-R-3/1 (Colly). 3. That the matter of petitioner ITI, it is pertinent to mention that petitioner",,,,,,
Institute has never applied for re-affiliation. Moreover, it is running single trade since 2011. Furthermore, it is also submitted that instead",,,,,,
of applying for re-affiliation of petitioner ITI and affiliation for another three new trades than electrician, the petitioner ITI has applied for",,,,,,
additional units in the same electrician trade, which cannot be considered as per prevailing norms. Accordingly, the application filed by the",,,,,,
petitioner for the additional 4th Base unit has been rejected by the Recommendation Committee, DGT in its 16th meeting held on",,,,,,
25.11.2020.â€,,,,,,
It is evident from the above extracted paras of respondent No.3’s reply that according to the respondent as per Affiliation Norms for,,,,,,
ITIs-year 2018:- (a) Affiliated ITIs are required to get re-affiliation for every five years from the date of affiliation (b) ITIs are required to,,,,,,
get affiliation for minimum 4 trades and minimum one unit per trade. Petitioner unit is running since 2011 and has never ever applied for,,,,,,
re-affiliation. Instead of applying for re-affiliation and for affiliation to the other three new trades, the petitioner had applied for additional",,,,,,
unit in the same electrician trade. The application filed by the petitioner for additional 4th base Unit in Electrician Trade was therefore,,,,,,
rejected by the Recommendation Committee (DGT) in its 16th meeting held on 25.11.2020.,,,,,,
3(iv). Following clause from Affiliation Norms for ITIs year 2018 provides for re-affiliation:-,,,,,,
“Instructions for 3.7.1:,,,,,,
All the institutes shall be re-affiliated for every 5 years from date of affiliation. The institutes shall submit online application at least one,,,,,,
year prior to expiry of affiliation/completion of five years of affiliation.â€,,,,,,
The petitioner institute was initially affiliated in the year 2011. The Affiliation Norms being pressed into service by respondent No.3,,,,,,
requiring re-affiliation after five years from the date of affiliation, came into existence in the year 2018. The ground of non re-affiliation, as",,,,,,
a reason for rejecting petitioner’s case was taken in the reply by respondent No.3. To this reply, petitioner has filed rejoinder with",,,,,,
specific averments in para-2 that ‘after 2018, the ITIs’ can apply for affiliation etc., only on online portal, however, no link for the",,,,,,
purposes of re-affiliation was ever generated on the site of the respondent’. No substantive rebuttal to this factual averment has been,,,,,,
made by respondent No.3. In such circumstances, the reason now putforth in the reply for rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground",,,,,,
of its non re-affiliation after five years from the date of affiliation, does not hold good.",,,,,,
3(v). The petitioner ITI had applied for additional 4th base Unit in Electrician Trade with three shifts. Respondent No.3 submits that the,,,,,,
petitioner was required to get affiliation for minimum four trades and minimum one unit per trade. Since the petitioner failed to do it,,,,,,
therefore, its case was rejected. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 could not point out any provision in the Affiliation Norms 2018,",,,,,,
which provides that an existing ITI has to get affiliation for minimum four trades.â€,,,,,,
Since two constitutional courts i.e. High Court of Delhi and this Court, in the judgments (supra) have already held that reliance of the DGT upon",,,,,,
the requirement of a minimum of four trades in order for an existing institution to apply for additional units/trades is unsustainable, prayer made in the",,,,,,
instant petition deserves to be accepted.,,,,,,
Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law relied upon, present petition is allowed and office memorandum",,,,,,
dated 3.2.2021 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for additional unit in terms,,,,,,
of report given by the Subcommittee without insisting upon the condition of having minimum four trades within a period of six weeks from today.,,,,,,
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with all pending applications, if any.",,,,,,