DWARKA PRIVATE-ITI Vs. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which is affiliated with the respondent no. 1, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dtd. 24/11/2020 de-affiliating the petitioner institute is wholly cryptic having been passed without furnishing any reason whatsoever. He however submits that in any event, the respondent no. 1 has mechanically accepted the inspection report submitted by the respondent no. 2 without dealing with the petitioner's plea that on 28/2/2020 when the inspection of the petitioner institute was carried out, the same was a restricted holiday and since the petitioner institute was observing it as a holiday, most of its staff members were not present in the institute. He therefore, submits that the impugned order be set aside on this ground alone.

(3.) The petition is vehemently opposed by both the respondents. Mr. Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, has vehemently urged that in view of the deficiencies noted in the inspection report forwarded by respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 1 was justified in passing the impugned order of de-affiliation against the petitioner. He submits that although the impugned order does not contain any reason for de-affiliation, detailed reasons in nature of deficiencies are explicitly noted in Annexure I to the impugned order. He, therefore contends that the impugned order cannot be said to be an unreasoned order. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 also supports the impugned order and contends that the inspection report relied upon by respondent no. 1 was based on a surprise inspection of the petitioner institute. The respondent no. 2 cannot be faulted for carrying out inspection on 18/2/2020 when it was admittedly never informed by the petitioner that it was adopting the said 'restricted holiday' as a holiday in its institute.