The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing, supplying the inspection report, and giving sufficient time to rectify deficiencies before rejecting an application for affiliation.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--The petitioner-institution, vide the instant writ petition is aggrieved by the decision of respondent no.1-Directorate General of Training (hereinafter referred to as `DGT') in rejecting the application for grant of affiliation for opening four trades from the Academic Year 2018-19 in its 1st meeting of Standing Committee of Accreditation and Affiliation (hereinafter referred to as SCAA) dated 5-6.04.2022. The petitioner-institution also prays for directions to conduct a fresh joint committee inspection and decide the application of the petitioner-institution dated 29.05.2018 for grant of affiliation for four trades afresh by following the principles of natural justice.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution submits that on 29.05.2018, the petitioner-institution with an object to start four trades in ITI made an application to DGT from Academic Year 2018-19. Since the application remained pending for a long time and no decision was taken, therefore, the petitioner-institution had to file a petition bearing W.P.(C) No.8149/2021, which was disposed of by this court on 10.08.2021 directing the DGT to process the application and convey the result thereto to the petitioner-institution within a period of three months.

3. It is seen that the DGT issued the directions to the said State Directorate, Bihar to conduct a joint inspection and to submit a report latest by 14.03.2022, however, on the request of the Secretary of the petitioner-institution, the inspection was postponed on account of some medical reason of the Secretary of the petitioner-institution.

4. On 17.03.2022, another communication was made by DGT to State Directorate, Bihar to conduct joint inspection and send a report latest by 31.03.2022.

5. It is seen that on 26.03.2022, a joint inspection team visited the premises of the petitioner-institution and submitted a report, wherein, the petitioner-institution was not recommended for grant of affiliation. The report so submitted by the joint inspection team was considered by the DGT in its first meeting on SCAA held on 5-6.04.2022 and it has been decided that the application of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner-institution has filed the instant writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution submits that the impugned decision is illegal and improper and the same suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-institution before taking the impugned decision. He also submits that the petitioner-institution was not required to submit any document at the time of inspection. Without prejudice to his submissions, he also submits that the petitioner-institution had categorically requested the inspecting team to provide seven days time to submit a set of documents as demanded by the inspecting team. He, therefore, states that at the time of submission of the application when all relevant documents are furnished by the concerned institution, therefore, at the time of inspection no further document can be asked. He also states that even if any document is required, sufficient time ought to have been granted to the petitioner-institution to furnish the same.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution places reliance on the decisions of this court in the cases of `Maa Saraswati Pvt. Ltd and Anr. vs. Directorate General of Training' in W.P.(C) No.11602/2022, a decision dated 19.04.2023 and `Mata Seeta Devi Private ITI vs. Directorate General of Training' in W.P.(C) No.1913/2023 and other connected matters, a decision dated 20.02.2023 and he states that under similar circumstances, the decision taken by the DGT was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the said authority for its fresh consideration.

8. Ms. Anju Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-DGT vehemently oppo