IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.518 of 2011 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi. 2. The Director General of Employment and Training, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marge, Government of India, New Delhi. ………………..Respondents- Appellants. Versus 1. HITACHI INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, through its Secretary, Priti Bharty Mohalla- Jagatpur, Sabour, P.S. Lodipur, District Bhagalpur. 2. Bhagalpur Industrial Training Centre, through its Secretary Vandana Sahi @ Vandana Sah R/M Tilkamanjhi, Jail Road, P.S. Tilkamanjhi, District Bhagalpur, Bihar. 3. Harsh Industrial Training Centre, through its Secretary, Madhu Devi, Behind C.R.P.F. Head Quarter, Road No. 24, Rajeev Nagar, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, District Patna. 4. Moti Gajadhar Chandrika Industrial Training College through its Secretary Bipin Kumar, mohalla Gaurachani, Barh, P.S. Barh, District Patna. ………………….Writ petitioners/ Respondents 1st set. 5. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment, Govt. of Bihar. ………………Writ petitioner No.3/ Respondent. 6. The Director, Employment and Training, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ……………..Writ petitioner/ Respondent no.4/ Respdt. 2nd set (Performa) ----------- For the Appellants: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, (Sr. Panel counsel) & Mr. Shiv Kumar (C.G.C) For the Respondents: Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate and Mr. Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, Advocate. 4 06.04.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties as also considering the averments made in the limitation petition, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The present L.P.A. has been filed against the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.11006 of 2010. The said writ petition was filed by the petitioners, respondents herein questioning grant of recognition by the National Council for Vocational Training (hereinafter referred to as NCVT) to the respondent’s institution with effect from February, 2009, whereas, application for recognition was made for 2 the academic sessions 2008-2009. The main contention urged before the learned Single Judge by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, respondents herein was that in view of flood situation in the State of Bihar the NCTV was requested to extend the date of inspection up to 30th November, 2008 vide letter No. izf’k0 fu0 la0& 50/2008- 3742 dated 20.10.2008. It has further been contended that the Disaster Management Department of the State of Bihar has issued a notification on 10.11.2008 with regard to declaration of the districts which are affected by floods wherein at Serial No.14 the district Bhagalpur has been shown as flood affected area. It has also been submitted that in another similarly situated institution at Samastipur ITC inspection was held prior to cut off date and recognition was granted from 2008. The learned Single Judge after hearing counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records has quashed orders of the NCVT granting recognition from 2009 and allowed the writ petition and a direction was given to respondent no.3 to the effect that if respondent no.3 represents his case before the NCVT and satisfies that it is similarly situated institution with regard to the date of inspection as that of Samastipur ITC, and therefore the NCVT is expected to accord similar treatment to respondent no.3. It has further been observed that once recognition is held to have been granted from the Session 2008- 2010, the NCVT is under obligation to perform all necessary acts in accordance with law so 3 that the students of the session have the full benefit of the recognition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present L.P.A. has been filed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has submitted that the NCVT was informed by the State of Bihar to extend the date of Inspection by sending a copy of the notification mentioning the areas which were effected by flood and therefore inspection of the institution of petitioners, respondents herein has been made after the cut off date i.e. on 31st October, 2008 and the institution has been granted recognition with effect from February, 2009 and therefore case of the petitioners, respondents herein cannot be said to be similar as that of Samastipur I.T.C as the inspection of the said institution was held prior to cut off date. In reply thereto the petitioners, respondents herein has brought to the notice of this Court the notification dated 20.10.2008 of the State of Bihar by which the NCVT was requested to extend the date of inspection of the petitioner’s institution up to 31st August, 2008 in view of flood situation in some of the districts of the State of Bihar. This was followed by the notification of the Disaster Management Department of the State of Bihar dated 10.11.2008, wherein the State of Bihar has specified the districts which were affected by flood situation. The respondent’s institution situated at Sabour in the Bhagalpur district was also mentioned in the said notification. 4 In view of above facts, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, respondents herein are of the view that even though the appellant’s department has not been informed individually by the State of Bihar regarding extension of time of inspection due to flood situation in pursuance to the notification issued on 10.11.2008, it should be presumed that the notification has been issued publicly and therefore in view of the aforesaid notification issued by the State Government there is no denial that the institution of the petitioners, respondents herein was effected by flood situation at the relevant point of time. Taking into account the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the State of Bihar has not communicated to its department individually regarding extension of time for holding inspection in the areas which were effected by flood situation, are not grounds for rejection of recognition for the particular Sessions 2008-2009. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this L.P.A. is dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)