IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6959 of 2010 1. MAA ATWARIYA DEVI INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE COURT STATION ROAD, ERKI, JEHANABAD, P.S.JEHANABAD IN THE DISTT-JEHANABAD, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, CHITRANJAN KUMAR , S/O SRI RAMCHANDRA PRASAD , R/O SALEMPUR, P.S.KAKO, DISTT-JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMOLOYMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR , EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For Union of India: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Tiwary, CGC For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC 15 Dr. A. Shakoor, AC to SC 15 ----- 3. 13.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Union of India as also the learned Counsel for the State of Bihar. It is unfortunate that the Union of India whose actions are questioned by discriminatory date for grant of recognition has not responded to the request of the Court to file a counter affidavit. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending. It is disposed with appropriate directions. The petitioner institution applied to the Director, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar in turn for approval by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India for recognition. His grievance is that the inspection was held and a panel prepared of 46 institutions. The petitioner institution was at serial 29 while one Nav Jyoti Industrial Training Centre which was at serial 31 and Krishna I.T.C. Bettiah at serial 41 have been granted recognition from August 2009, the petitioner has been discriminated by grant of such recognition from February 2010. If the Union of India which is the nodal agency for grant of recognition had choosen to assist the Court the matter could have been disposed off finally in accordance with law. Let the petitioner represent before the respondent no. 2 with respect to his grievance and which is required to be disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. If the respondents propose to distinguish the case of the petitioner vis a vis those on whom the petitioner relies to urge discrimination, the respondent concerned is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the issues of distinction. If the respondent is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment and grant of recognition from August 2009 it is expected that necessary consequential orders shall be issued simultaneously. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)