IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36187 of 2010(W)
1. CRESCENT CHARITABLE SCOEITY MUSLIM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRCTOR, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
... Respondent
2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.SANEER
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/12/2010
O R D E R
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