IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36187 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- CRESCENT CHARITABLE SOCIETY MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BEARING REGISTRATION NO.Q.583/2003, CRESCENT COMPLEX, SARATHY JUNCTION MEIKON ROAD, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM-14, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PROF.ADBUL SALAM HAJI. BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.SANEER SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DIRCTOR, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING, MINISTRY OF LABOUR DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING NEW DELHI-1. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 36187 of 2010 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Self Financing Educational Institution, which has applied for starting an Industrial Training College. Affiliation of the course is to be granted by the second respondent. Such affiliation is granted based on an inspection by an expert committee constituted by the first respondent and its recommendation. 2. According to the petitioner, they applied for affiliation for three course, viz., Physiotherapy Technician, Health Sanitary Inspector and Medical Transcription. After inspection, petitioner's Institution was recommended for affiliation only for Health Sanitary Inspector course. In so far as the other two courses are concerned, reason for not recommending the Institution, according to the petitioner, is that the petitioner did not have three phase power connection. 3. Relying on Ext.P17, petitioner submits that W.P.(C) No.36187/10 : 2 : although three phase power connection is ordinarily required, the respondents are authorised to recommend the institutions having single phase connection also in non technical areas. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the view taken that the petitioner should have three phase connection for recommendation, in so far as the aforesaid two courses are concerned, is incorrect. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the inspection and recommendation is based on the guidelines issued by the second respondent. It is stated that at any rate, even going by Ext.P17, the course of Physiotherapy Technician is a technical one and, therefore, in the absence of three phase connection, the respondents cannot be faulted for insisting on three phase connection. 5. I have considered the submissions made. It is true that as contended by the learned Government Pleader, Physiotherapy Technician is categorised under the engineering trades and, therefore, the exemption provided in W.P.(C) No.36187/10 : 3 : the foot note contained in Ext.P17 cannot apply in so far as Physiotherapy Technician course is concerned. However, the course of Medical Transcription is categorised under the non engineering trades and, therefore, in my view, prima facie, the petitioner should be eligible for the benefit of the exemption provided in the foot note. If that be so, at least the petitioner's request for reconsideration in so far as their request for Medical Transcription is concerned is a matter for the first respondent to consider. It is seen that complaining of the refusal of the first respondent in recommending the courses the petitioner has already filed Ext.P18 before the first respondent. 6. Taking note of the pendency of the representation and as prima facie Medical Transcription is a non engineering course, I direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P18 in so far as the course in Medical Transcription is concerned and pass appropriate orders in the matter. This shall be done by the first respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any W.P.(C) No.36187/10 : 4 : rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge