IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No 9 of 2011 a/w CWP No. 15 of 2011 Reserved on: 24.8.2011 Date of decision: 13.10.2011 1. CWP No. 9 of 2011 Bhuvneshwari Industrial Training Centre ..Petitioner Versus Directorate General of Employment & Training & Ors. ….Respondents 2. CWP No. 15 of 2011 M.G. Industrial Training Centre ..Petitioner Versus Directorate General of Employment & Training & Ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner(s): Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASG for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra Dy. AG for respondent No.2. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ 2 Deepak Gupta, J 1. These petitions are being disposed of by one judgment since similar questions of facts and law are involved in both the cases. 2. The petitioners are Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioners applied to the Director of Technical Education H.P. for starting of new trades including that of fitter in this institution. On the proposal of the petitioner’s Society, respondent No.2 issued a letter of intent and carried out physical verification of the building, machinery and equipments available with the petitioners. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the machinery and raised infrastructure but objections were raised time and again. According to the petitioners, every time new objections were raised by the respondents only with a view to deny permission to the petitioners on one pretext or the other. 4. As far as CWP No. 9 of 2011 is concerned, it is apparent that initially one inspection was carried out in the year 2007, wherein certain objections were raised. Thereafter, some other inspection was carried out in the year 2008, wherein new objections were raised and this process of carrying on inspection has been going on for a long time. The petitioner has filed a number of petitions in this court 3 including CWP No. 3192 of 2010, wherein this Court passed the following order:- “2. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has submitted that certain defects have been pointed out in the report of Standing Inspection Committee dated 26.5.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these defects have been cured. It is however to be seen that inspections have been going since 2007 and apparently every time new issues are being raised. There will be a direction to the Standing Inspection Committee to fresh inspect the premises of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today and in case the defects have been substantially cured, the required order shall be passed by the first respondent. The first respondent while passing the order will also bear in mind that the petitioner has been conducting the course since 2007 and the second respondent never raised objection regarding the deficiency as pointed by first respondent. It will also be borne in mind that except for the course of Fitter, affiliation had been granted to other courses. It will be open to the petitioner to make provisional admission subject to the decision to be taken by first respondent, since the counselling is to commence next week. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.” 5. Thereafter also affiliation was not granted. Both the petitioners filed fresh petitions and in these petitions, the following order was passed:- “The petitioners approached this court aggrieved by the delay in getting permanent affiliation for respective trades. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, based on the 4 instructions dated 20.8.2010 from the Director General of Employment and Training (under Ministry of Labour & Employment), Government of India, submits that the Standing Inspection Committee has completed the inspection and the Committee has recommended their cases. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the N.C.V.T. to take consequential action based on the recommendations within a week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners. The petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application (s) if any 6. It is contended by Ms. Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners that every time new objections are being raised and further, according to her, in the last order quoted hereinabove, Union of India had virtually recommended the case of the petitioners, but later on it was recommended that the petitioners Unit be disaffiliated. 7. As far as CWP No. 15 of 2011 is concerned, in that also on 30.11.2010 the Inspection Committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner for several trades. According to respondent No.1, despite re-inspection of the premises of the petitioner, same were not found up to the mark and hence the cases were not recommended. The petitioner has filed rejoinders and supplementary affidavit and has again reiterated that it has the best staff and has also purchased all the requisite machinery and therefore, 5 prays that they may be permitted to run the courses in the trades. 8. On perusal of the entire documents, it is apparent that the petitioners’ institutions have been inspected time and again. Ms. Sunita Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon para-11 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Al-Karim Educational Trust and another vs. State of Bihar and others, (1996) 8 SCC 330, which reads as follows:- “11. In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical Council of India to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonable or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction. We must make it clear that we are not diluting the importance of fulfilling the essential prerequisite set by the Medical Council before granting recognition. The facts of this case are very special and exceptional. In the present case, we take note of the following aspects:- (a) The appellant-Institution was granted temporary affiliation nearly 6 years ago (29-12-1989). (b) More than three years ago, (on 16-7-1992) this Court directed that students may be admitted and permitted to take examination, subject to certain conditions and this has been so done. (c) In view of the earlier orders of this Court dated 28-9-1993, the only question that 6 survives for consideration is whether affiliation should be granted to the appellants. (d) On more than three occasions, this Court, after perusal of the affidavits of the parties and report of the authorities concerned about the deficiencies pointed out, directed time- bound inspections, by Medical Council of India, along with other authorities bearing in mind that we are concerned with the post- establishment stage. (e) At one stage, it came to light that the original deficiencies having been removed, new of further deficiencies were pointed out by the Medical council of India, which were ordered by this Court to be removed. (f) Finally, the appellants filed a tabular statement along with an affidavit dated 4-9- 1995, stating that even the new deficiencies pointed out have been removed and the averments in that behalf stand uncontradicted. (g) The appellants claim to be a minority institution and the difficulties/or even the imponderables to start a new institution cannot be gainsaid. To insist on fulfilling all requirements at a stretch in modern conditions is not a practical proposition and ordinarily, only those aspects or requirements, which in the minimal will give a good start for effectively imparting education, with ancillary requisites may be considered sufficient in the extraordinary circumstances of this case. 7 (h) It is impractical to insist, for a foolproof or absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance, for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the Institution has begun to function, students admitted to the Institution have taken the examination and the fate of a good many number of students should nothing in the balance in a unending or everlasting manner. (i) In the final analysis, the question to be posed is whether there exists the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going, and not whether better arrangements that will render the set-up more efficient and more satisfactory, should be insisted as “a wooden” rule. (j) It may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and there which call for rectification. Time can certainly set right such matters. What is required is a total, practical, overall view in the light of the latest tabular statement filed along with the affidavit dated 4-9-1995. Material placed before the court goes to show that there has been ‘substantial’ though not literal compliance with the deficiencies pointed out in the latest report dated 28-6-1995. (k) Lapse of time and the turn of events call for urgent action and any delay on that score will entail untold hardship to the students and the Institution.” 8 9. From the facts narrated above, it is more than apparent that the cases of the petitioners were considered time and again by the Inspection Committee and every time some different objections were raised. It is not clear as to why the objections are not raised at one stage. Furthermore, the impression given to this Court in CWP Nos. 4922 of 2010 and 4962 of 2010 was that the Inspection Committee had completed the inspection and recommended the cases of the petitioners. The contention of Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, is that the recommendation can also be a recommendation for rejection of the case cannot be accepted. If that was so this should have been clearly submitted before the Division Bench which may have not passed the order directing consequential action based on the recommendations within one week. 10. In Al-Karim’s case(supra) the Apex Court held that when original deficiencies had been removed and new deficiencies pointed out were also removed, it was impractical to insist, for a foolproof or absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance. Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases wherein the petitioners have virtually removed all objections, the rejection orders dated 30.11.2010 are quashed and set aside and respondent No.1 is directed to grant affiliation to the petitioners, Institutions for the trades concerned. This affiliation shall be granted latest by 30th 9 November, 2011 and shall come into force w.e.f. 1st December, 2011. It is, however, made clear that grant of affiliation shall not prevent respondent No.1 from carrying out fresh inspection and point out the deficiencies, if any. The petitioners should rectify the deficiencies pointed out and in case they do not rectify the deficiencies and respondent No.1 can show that these deficiencies are so material that they can affect the quality of education then respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to approach this Court seeking permission to cancel the affiliation. 10. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. October 13, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (vt) Judge