The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were not entitled to an extension of time for admitting students in Electrician and Fitter trade for the academic session 2016-17 due to the insufficient training period left before the examination date.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. As both these petitions involve a common issue, the same are being decided by this common order.

Facts:-

Writ Petition (Civil) 9444/2016

2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“1. Pass an appropriate order, writ or direction and extend the last date for admitting students in Electrician and Fitter trade for academic session 2016-17 for which the petitioner has already been granted affiliation by the respondent; and

2. Consequently pass an order and permit the Petitioner to admit students against 4 (2+2+0) units in “Electrician trade” and 4 (2+2+0) units in “Fitter trade” for academic session 2016-17 and further permit the petitioner to commence the course from said academic session;

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on December 14, 2015, the respondent invited applications from institutions desirous of seeking affiliation for various skill development trades for academic session 2016-17, by April 15, 2016. In response thereof, the petitioner had on, March 3, 2016 submitted application with the QCI for seeking affiliation for 4 (2+2+0) units in “Electrician Trade” and 4 (2+2+0) units in “Fitter Trade”. It is the stand of the petitioner that it completed Desktop Assessment on May 05, 2016 and made payment towards site visit. The QCI conducted the site visit of the petitioner on May 22, 2016 and on June 17, 2016 all the NC’s of the site visit were successfully completed.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that vide circular dated June 17, 2016 the DGT took a decision that henceforth while receiving applications from ITI’s seeking affiliation the relevant document in support of building permission as per building byelaws of local authority must also be insisted and the QCI was asked to apply the said decision to all cases currently in the pipeline for August 2016 session. It is the case of the petitioner that QCI did not insist upon the Building Completion Certificate from the petitioner and vide its decision dated July 20, 2016 had in its meeting granted accreditation and the file was sent to NCVT (DGT) for affiliation. It is the case of the petitioner that on July 25, 2016, the QCI informed the petitioner that further action in respect of its application shall be taken only after receipt of the Building Completion Certificate. The petitioner would contend that on July 19, 2016, it had already submitted application in the office of the District Collector for obtaining Building Completion Certificate. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the land on which the petitioner is situated is agricultural in nature and falls outside the limits of local authorities and therefore, the local authorities do not have power and jurisdiction to issue Building Completion Certificate in respect of buildings constructed on such lands. It is the stand of the petitioner that the District Collector vide its certificate dated August 26, 2016 certified that till date no Master Plan/Development Plan/Regional Plan/Zonal Plan has been received in respect of land over which the petitioner is situated. The said letter was forwarded by the petitioner on August 30, 2016 to the QCI. On August 30, 2016 itself, the DGT-respondent issued a circular vide which it relaxed the condition of submitting the Building Completion Certificate and required the petitioner to submit the approved building plan signed by competent authority and to give an undertaking to the effect that the building plan shall be submitted within six months. Being aggrieved by demanding Building Completion Certificate, the petitioner filed writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) No. 7971/2016 when this Court after hearing the arguments on September 14, 2016 directed the QCI and the respondent to decide the application of the petitioner for the academic session 2016-17 without insisting upon Building Completion Certificate.

5. It is averred that vide notice dated September 26, 2016, the respondent extended the closing da