Any decision without granting an opportunity to the petitioner is unsustainable. Deficiencies must be communicated before taking a decision.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the impugned decision taken by the respondent-Directorate General of Training (DGT) in its 1st meeting of the Revised Standing Committee on Accreditation and Affiliation (SCAA) held on 5th and 6th April, 2022. The petitioners have also prayed for the direction to respondent-DGT to process and decide the application submitted by them for grant of extension of affiliation for 4 (2+2) Units of Electrician Power Distribution and 4 (2+2) Units of Early Childhood Educator from the Academic Session 2022-2023 in a time bound manner.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has taken this court through the impugned decision to indicate that certain deficiencies were noted therein, with respect to the petitioners and without providing a copy of the inspection report or an opportunity to explain the deficiencies, the impugned decision has been taken.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-DGT has opposed the submissions made by the petitioners and he states that the decision has been taken strictly in accordance with law and the deficiencies, as have been noted, clearly indicate that the petitioners were not fulfilling the applicable norms. According to him, even the decision with respect to the deficiencies was communicated to the petitioners, which has been stated in their counter-affidavit. Additionally, he states that even otherwise, the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous for the reason that the application for affiliation was for the Academic Year 2020-2021 and at this stage, the petitioners cannot be granted any affiliation.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

5. The impugned decision taken by the respondent with respect to the petitioners records the following deficiencies:—

6. The respondent-DGT in its counter-affidavit in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 has stated as under:—

“2. That the deponent most respectfully submits that the case of the Petitioner ITI has already been considered in the Minutes of Meeting of the Revised SCAA held on 05/04/2022 and 06104/2022 and owing to certain deficiencies mentioned in the Minutes of Meeting, the application of the Petitioner ITI for additional trades/units was “Not Recommended’.

3. That the deficiencies discovered in the Petitioner Institute, subsequent to inspection, were communicated on the NCVT portal through an order no. DGT-AFFO11 (51)/10/2022 O/o Dir (TC) dated 22.04.2022. It is submitted that the deficiencies highlighted in the aforesaid order, included the unavailability of the Building completion certificate and details of the teaching staff, inadequate power supply and machinery tools, unapproved building plan etc. The copy of the order dated 22.04.2022 has been annexed herewith as Annexure R-1.”

7. It is seen that there is no averment made in the counter affidavit of the respondent-DGT to indicate that before taking the impugned decision, the deficiencies were pointed out to the petitioners. It only states that the deficiencies discovered in the petitioners in the inspection, were communicated/uploaded on the National Council for Vocational Training portal