indira Gandhi Ayyappa Industrial Training Institute, Bobbili Vs. National Council for Vocational Trades and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution - education - sections 2 (16) and 20 of a. p. education act, 1982 - requirement for establishment of industrial training institute - specie of education - held, permission of state government needed for establishment of industrial training institute. - - pursuant to such sectioners students were allotted up to and including the academic year 1985-86 and standing committees were also deputed to inspect the institutes and report whether the norms prescribed by the national council are satisfied. 1982 session and before, which were not recommended by the standing committees for permanent affiliation to the national council as they failed to achieve the requisite standards prescribed. at the same time it is pointed out that some of the petitioners did apply to the director of employment and training for permission to set up the institutions but the director failed to take any action in respect of those applications. it is submitted that if the petitioner-institutions are derecognised at this stage it would cause considerable hardship to the institutes as well as the trainees and no opportunities should be provided to set right the defects so that permanent affiliation to the national council can be granted. are demonstrating an arrogant and unhelpful attitude and the government felt that it can no longer permit the growth of institutions which defy statutory provisions and fail to achieve the requisite standards prescribed by the national council for permanent affiliation. (e) if the director is satisfied that any of the petitioner-institutions did not rectify the matters referred to by the standing committee, the director shall pass an sectioner, in writing, refusing to grant permission under section 20 of the education act giving appropriate reasons. as already observed, learned government pleader pointed out that the one year course of study commencing in the year 1986 would end in 1987and the two year course of study would end in 1988. if the institutions arc eventually derecognised because of the failure on the part of the petitioner institutions to comply with the aforesaid directions of the court, it would then be difficult to resume the students from the, respective courses of study and re-allot them to other the institutions. sri ramesh babu raises strong objection to this plea. like the petitioner-institutions.order1. affairs of the private industrial training institutes in this state are in a chaos. a stage has come to property regulate the functioning of these private institutions. it is said that most of the institutions are functioning under orders of this court without permission from the authorities concerned. if there is a mushroom growth of these institutions causing jeopardy to the interests of the students entering these institutions, it should be checked forthwith. however, genuine institutions imparting vocational and technical education should be encouraged to function properly. what is required is a sympathetic understanding of the difficulties, if any, being experienced by these institutions and to devise proper remedial measures. opportunities should be provided to these institutions to make up short falls noticed so that permanent affiliation of these institutions to the national council for vocational training, new delhi ('the national council' for short) is assured.2. all these writ petitions are, filed by private industrial training institutions (numbering a little over 70), established at various places, seeking two reliefs. the first relief is that these institutions should be granted permanent affiliation of certain trades and units to the national council. the second relief claimed is that they should be allotted students in different trades for the academic year 1986-87.3. realising that there is need for setting up a central agency for co-ordinating the training programmes in the country bringing about uniformity of standards and awarding certificate of proficiency in craftsmanship on all-india basis, the national council was established by the government of india. the national council is required to administer craftsmen. training scheme, the objects of which are (i) to ensure a steady flow of skilled workers in different trades for the industry : (ii) to raise the quality and quantity of industrial production by systematic training of workers; and (iii) to reduce unemployment among the educated youth by equipping them for suitable industrial employment.4. the government of india had also decided to transfer the administration of the training organisation under the directorate general of resettlement & employment to the control of the state, government concerned, retaining for themselves the function of co-ordinating craftsmen training and -laying down the training policy. the national council is entrusted with the functions related to establishing and awarding of national trade certificates for craftsmen, prescribing standards and curriculum for craftsmen training in the technical and vocational trades throughout the country and assisting the central government on the overall training policy and programmes.5. at the state level the director of employment and training carries out the policy of the national council and implements its decisions in respect of syllabi, equipment, scale of accommodation, duration of courses and method of training. the director of employment and training also, arranges for ad hoc or periodical inspection of the training institutes in the state and ensure that the standards prescribed by the national council are being followed.6. with the object of training students in vocational and technical education, institutes are set up not only by the state government but also by several private agencies. the petitioners herein belong to the category of private agencies who had set up industrial training institutions at various places for the aforesaid purpose. these institutions are set up between 1979 and 1984. learned government pleader claims that these institutions are set up without securing any permission from the government under section 20 of the a.p. education act, 1982 and formal permissions of the director of employment and training have not been obtained to set up by any of the petitioner-institutions. learned government pleader further claims that when the government declined to allot students for training in these institutions, these institutions approached this court and obtained directions for allotment of students and to send standing committees for inspection and consider the question of granting permanent affiliation to these institutions. pursuant to such sectioners students were allotted up to and including the academic year 1985-86 and standing committees were also deputed to inspect the institutes and report whether the norms prescribed by the national council are satisfied.7. learned government pleader submits that the national council reviewed the affiliation procedure of industrial training institutes in february, 1985 and issued directions to implement the following policy at state level: (i) alt institutes, which had been started in august, 1982 session and before and which could not achieve requisite standards as per prescribed norms of the national council for permanent affiliation by august, 1985 would stand derecognised. no new admissions shall be made in such institutes in august, 1985 session unless they get permanent affiliation during 1985-86; (ii) new industrial training institutes started with the permission of the concerned state director, in august, 1983 and august 1984 session, would be allowed to make up their short falls till august, 1986 and august, 1987 respectively. if they do not achieve the requisite standards as per prescribed norms, they would also stand derecognised by the end of the year 1986 and 1987; and (iii) no new i.t.is. should henceforth be started from the august, 1985 session onwards, unless all the requisite infrastructural facilities, as per prescribed norms, are made available. such i.t.is. should qualify for permanent affiliation to the national council before their trainees could be permitted to appear for the all india trade test under the craftsmen training scheme.8. learned government pleader classifies the petitioner-institutions into two categories. the first category consists of 25 institutions which had been started in august. 1982 session and before, which were not recommended by the standing committees for permanent affiliation to the national council as they failed to achieve the requisite standards prescribed. according to the learned government pleader, all these 25 institutions would stand derecognised automatically. the second category relates to the industrial training institutes which had been started in august, 1983/august. 1984 sessions. a list of 49 institutions is filed by the learned government pleader pointing out that the standing committees inspecting these institutions reported that the institutions did not achieve the requisite standards as per prescribed norms and consequently they cannot acquire permanent affiliation to the national council. it is urged that the petitioners herein belong to the above two categories. while the first category of 25 institutions stood already derecognised, the second category stand the risk of being derecognised before the end of the year 1986-87. it is stated that if trainees are allotted to these institutions in 1986, the course of study would extend to the year 1987 and beyond and it will not be possible to allow the. institutions function after derecognition. it is, therefore, submitted that the director of employment and training found it impossible to allot trainees to any of the petitioner-institution herein because of the above policy enunciated by the national council.9. m/s. k. ramesh babu, k. v. subrahmanya narsu, j. siddayya and k. p. v. subba reddy, learned counsel appearing for the various petitioners herein, refuted the allegations made by the learned government pleader. it is urged that the petitioner-institutions are under no obligation to secure permission under section 20 of the education act as vocational and technical education, according to the learned counsel, do not fall within the purview of the education act. it is said that vocational and technical education isa central subject occurring in the union list of the schedule vii. it is also urged that no permission is required to set up industrial training institutes from the director of employment and training, or for that matter from the national council under the craftsmen training scheme. at the same time it is pointed out that some of the petitioners did apply to the director of employment and training for permission to set up the institutions but the director failed to take any action in respect of those applications. finding that the director was not moving in the matter, the training institutes started functioning as considerable sums of money were already invested in the purchase of equipment etc. it is submitted that no useful purpose would have been served by these institutions remaining idle after equipping themselves with all the infrastructure and it was at that stage that the petitioners approached this court earlier and secured directions to allot students etc. learned counsel, therefore, submit that the petitioners cannot be blamed in the matter. it is further submitted that there was inordinate delay in deputing the standing committees for inspection of the infrastructural facilities etc., provided by these institutes and these standing committees inspected only in june/july 1986 and submitted reports to the director of employment and training regarding permanent affiliation. learned counsel make a grievance that the reports of the standing committees are not made available to the petitioner-institutions and consequently the recommendations of the standing committees regarding permanent affiliation are hot known to the petitioners. it is submitted that if the petitioner-institutions are derecognised at this stage it would cause considerable hardship to the institutes as well as the trainees and no opportunities should be provided to set right the defects so that permanent affiliation to the national council can be granted. learned counsel submitted that if trainees are not allotted for the 1986 session, which has just commenced, the institutes will have to remain idle without any training programme causing serious inconvenience and hardship. it is claimed that several lakhs of students have applied for admission into various trades and units and there is any amount of need to allow these students to take the courses of study applied for by them. finally learned counsel claimed that the government training institutes stand on the same footing as the private institutes and even in the case of government institutes the infrastructural facilities were in no sense superior to those offered by the private institutes. under pressure from the government the standing committees have been recommending permanent affiliation of the government institutes to the national council although qualitatively they stand in no superior position. it is said that the government is practising hostile discrimination between the government it.is. and private i.t.is. and trainees are being allotted only to government i.t.is. rejecting the claims of the private institutions. learned counsel also claimed that the procedure regarding allotment of trainees is something new in this state and in no other state there is a procedure of a selection committee at the district level allotting trainees. it is said that in other states the institutes are at liberty to admit trainees.10. replying briefly to the aforesaid allegations, learned government pleader pointed out that while it may be true in a small number of cases some kind of scrappy applications were made to the director of employment & training, they were not made in the prescribed form and prescribed particulars were not furnished and consequently no action could be taken by the director on such unhelpful applications. learned government pleader also pointed out that this court directed the petitioners while disposing of writ petition no. 8175 of 1985 and batch of 21st of august, 1985, to apply for permission under section 20 of the education act; nevertheless the petitioners did not care to make any applications as directed. about 10 or 12 persons, who made the applications pursuant to the directions of this court, merely addressed letters to the director of employment and training that they are making the applications as directed by the court. no particulars or information in the prescribed form were furnished. learned government pleader submits that these private i.t.is. are demonstrating an arrogant and unhelpful attitude and the government felt that it can no longer permit the growth of institutions which defy statutory provisions and fail to achieve the requisite standards prescribed by the national council for permanent affiliation. learned government pleader, therefore, submitted that all these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the above said reasons.11. the first question to be resolved is whether permission under section 20 of the a.p. education act is required for setting up the industrial training institutions.12. learned counsel contend that technical and vocational education is a central subject occurring in entry 65 of list i (union list) of the 7th schedule and consequently the state government cannot exercise jurisdiction under the education act.13. entry 65 of the union list of the 7th schedule reads as under : --'65. union agencies and institutions for - (a) professional, vocational or technical training, including the training of police officers; or (b) the promotion of special studies or research; or (c) scientific or technical assistance in the investigation or detection of crime.' entry 25 of list no. iii (concurrent list) of the 7th schedule may also be extracted here : --'25. education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of list 1; vocational and technical training of labour.'14. it is pointed out that entry 25 appearing in the concurrent list is subject to the provisions of entry 65 of the union list and consequently what governs the matter under consideration is entry 65 of the union list. it is therefore, urged that the state government cannot concurrently exercise any power over technical or vocational education as that is entirely a central subject governed by entry 65 of the union list.15. i am unable to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. it is necessary to notice that entry 65 does not refer to the vocational or technical training as such. it refers to union agencies and institutions for professional, vocational or technical training. prom the description given in entry 65 of the union list it is clear that it is only an agency or an institution established for professional, vocational or technical training that falls within the central subject against entry 65, and not the professional, vocational or technical training as such. it cannot be overlooked that the union government had established a number of agencies and institutions for regulating the study of professional, vocational and technical education. undoubtedly the agencies created by the union or the institutions created by the union for the purpose of regulating professional, vocational! or technical training come within the purview of entry 65 of the union list. the education as such in professional, vocational or technical courses does not fall under entry 65. on the contrary, it falls under entry 25 of the concurrent list. the qualification that entry 25 of the concurrent list is subject to entry 65 of the union list is for the limited purpose of stating that any agency or institution established by the union falling within the purview of entry 65 shall not be governed by entry 25 of the concurrent list. in my opinion, the qualification occurring in entry 25 of the concurrent list is not to put professional, vocational or technical training as such in the union list. it seems to me, therefore, that the vocational and technical education fall within the scope of entry 25 of the concurrent list and the state government has, therefore, power to exercise in regard to these items of education.16. section 2 of the education act contains definitions. clause (16) defines the expression 'education' as meaning general education technical education, physical education, etc. thus, industrial training institutions imparting technical and vocational education fall within the meaning of 'education' as defined in section 2(16) of the education act. it is then imperative that permission for establishment of all such educational institutions should be obtained from the state government as required by section 20 of the education act. having regard to the above facts, i am of the opinion that the petitioners are under an obligation to secure permission from the state government under section 20 of the education act for establishment of the industrial training institutions. the omission to obtain such permission would be fatal to the continued existence of the petitioner institutions.17. i may also, in this connection, invite attention to the judgment of my learned brother ramanujulu naidu, j. in w. p. no. 8175 of 1985 and batch, dated 21st august, 1985. that batch of writ petitions, disposed of by my learned brother, relates to industrial training institutes and an identical contention was urged before the learned judge that all the institutions concerned therein did not apply for and obtain permission under section 20 of the education act. dealing with the above contention, the learned judge observed.'i am, however, of the opinion that the institutions must obtain permission under section 20 of the act to run the same. the institutions shall apply for permission within two months from today and on receipt of such applications, the state government may accord permission following the procedure prescribed under the act and the rules made thereunder.'i am in respectful agreement with the view of the learned single judge that the institutions, such as the petitioners, are squarely governed by section 20 of the education act. i may also refer to the decision of a division bench in w. p. no. 6143/83, dt. 26th august, 1986. the question which arose for consideration in that case was whether the a.p. educational institutions (regulation of admissions and prohibition of capitation fee) act (act v of 1983) and the rules made there under are applicable to rural vocational training centre, an institution of the petitioner's kind. the contention that act v of 1983 is not applicable is based more or lesson analogous grounds as are urged in the present case that the state government has no power to legislate in these matters. the division bench declined to countenance the objection and upheld the power of the state government to legislate in the matter. the aforementioned decision of the division bench squarely covers the matter under consideration in the present case as it is analogous.18. the director of employment and training is the competent authority, as per the rules framed under the a.p. education act, to grant permission for establishing industrial training institutes. it is imperative, therefore, that all the petitioner institutions should apply for and obtain formal permissions from the director of employment and training for establishing the institutions. it is open to the petitioner-institutions to make appropriate applications, in the prescribed form, to the director of employment and training and furnish all the required particulars and information to enable the director to consider the applications for the grant of permission.19. considering the fact that these institutions had been established between 1979-84, it would be equitable to consider the applications of the institutions for permission. in view of the representation made by the learned government pleader before me that the standing committees had already inspected the petitioner-institutions and submitted their reports, it would be appropriate that the director of employment and training should communicate to each one of the petitioners herein the recommendations of the standing committees and point out, in particular, the shortfalls or the deficiencies pointed out. the petitioners should be given an opportunity to rectify the matters and become eligible for permission under section 20 of the education act and also for permanent affiliation to the national council. having regard to these imperatives, the following directions are given :(a) all the petitioners herein shall, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this sectioner, make applications to the director of employment and training in the prescribed form and furnish the required information and particulars for granting permission to establish the institution. (b) the director of employment and training shall forthwith, without waiting for the receipt of the applications, referred to in item (a) supra, forward to the petitioners, if not already done so, a gist of the recommendations of the standing committee, pointing out in particular the shortfalls and the deficiencies. the director shall give an opportunity to each one of the petitioner-institutions to rectify the matters before 15th november, 1986. (c) on or before 15th nov., 1986 each one of the petitioners shall communicate, in writing, to the director regarding the rectification of the matters referred to by the standing committee. it will be open to the director to satisfy himself that the petitioner-institutions rectified the matters. (d) after satisfying himself, as above mentioned, the director shall pass ah sectioner in writing by 30th nov., 1986 granting formal permission for establishing the institutions under section 20 of the education act and also refer the petitioners' cases to the national council for permanent affiliation. (e) if the director is satisfied that any of the petitioner-institutions did not rectify the matters referred to by the standing committee, the director shall pass an sectioner, in writing, refusing to grant permission under section 20 of the education act giving appropriate reasons. if the petitioner is aggrieved against such an sectioner, it will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in the matter. 20. learned counsel for the petitioners made a grievance that in several cases where the recommendations of the standing committees were communicated, the objections are vague and inexplicable. it is stated that unless specific omissions are pointed out, it will be difficult for the petitioners to rectify the same. it is true that unless matters are specifically referred, the petitioners will not be in a position to rectify the same. the director shall, therefore, take care to see that the matters requiring rectification are specifically communicated and the petitioners are put on proper notice regarding the same.21. the aforesaid directions dispose of the matter regarding permission to the petitioner-institutions for establishing the institutions and compliance with the procedure for permanent affiliation to the national council. it only remains to deal with the petitioners' contention that trainees may be allotted to these institutions pending the above formalities being gone through learned counsel point out that the 1986 session has just started and unless the government allots trainees to the first year. and second year courses of study straightway, it will be difficult for the petitioner-institutions to proceed with the teaching schedule. learned government pleader resists the above plea of the petitioners. it is contended that it will be fatal to allot trainees to the petitioner-institutions, for the respective courses of study unless the petitioner-institutions are recognised and there is a definite possibility of the petitioner-institutions being affiliated to the national council. as already observed, learned government pleader pointed out that the one year course of study commencing in the year 1986 would end in 1987and the two year course of study would end in 1988. if the institutions arc eventually derecognised because of the failure on the part of the petitioner institutions to comply with the aforesaid directions of the court, it would then be difficult to resume the students from the, respective courses of study and re-allot them to other the institutions. learned government pleader stated that if the petitioner-institutions stand chance of recognition and affiliation following the aforementioned directions of the court, it would be possible for the director of employment and training to allot trainees in december, 1986, subject to availability of students. it is said that there will be no serious inconvenience to the teaching schedule even if admissions are made in dec. 1986.22. i am inclined to uphold the objection of the learned government pleader. it serves no purpose to allot trainees to the petitioner-institutions to the respective courses of study. unless there is an imminent possibility of these institutions complying with the formalities for recognition and affiliation. the directions given by me above would ensure a decision one way or the other by the end of november, 1986. all that is required is that the director of employment and training should act earnestly and speedily in the matter. in respect of all such institutions which may be recognised by director of employment and training by the end of nov. 1986 pursuant to the directions given above, there will be no difficulty in allotting trainees for the respective courses of study in dec. 1986. the director of employment and training is accordingly directed to speed up the process by implementing the directions given by the court and determine the eligibility of the petitioners herein to recognition and permanent affiliation. on formal permission under section 20 of the education act being accorded and petitioners' cases referred to the national council for permanent affiliation, the director of employment and training shall allot trainees to the institutions in dec., 1986. it will be open to the director to refuse to allot trainees if, in compliance with the directions given by this court, he either refuses to accord permission under section 20 of the education act, for establishing the institution for any reason whatsoever, or finds that the institution is not entitled to permanent affiliation to the national council in spite of the opportunity given to the institution concerned to rectify the matters pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this court.23. a minor controversy is raised at the time of hearing regarding the allotment of students in the year 1986 to the two year course of study. learned government pleader contends that the trainees admitted into two years course of study in 1984 session will be completing in 1986. it is submitted that admission of trainees will not be given to the two years course of study every year as the infrastructural facilities are not adequate. sri ramesh babu raises strong objection to this plea. he points out that for the two years course of study trainees are admitted every year till now and there is no reason why a different procedure should be adopted in the year 1986. it is said that trainees are so allotted in the institutions run by the government and there should be no discrimination between the government run i.t.is. and the private managed i.t.is. i do not have the entire material before me to consider the correctness or otherwise of the plea raised by the learned government pleader in this regard. the petitioners are directed to make appropriate representations to the director of employment and training in this regard pointing out to him the established procedure so that he may give effect to the same procedure as was in existence till now without effecting any change. there should also be no discrimination in this matter between the government run i.t.is. and the private managed i.t.is. like the petitioner-institutions. if, after a debate in the matter between the director of employment and training and the petitioners herein, differences should prevail and the director should refuse to allot trainees to the two years course of study on the plea taken by the learned government pleader, it will be open to the petitioners to specifically challenge the decision of the director in that regard.24. if in the particular facts and circumstances of any institute, the director thinks it expedient or necessary to grant more time for rectifying the matters pointed out by the standing committee, it may be open to him to do so notwithstanding the directions given by this court above. if on account of the further time given by the director issue of sectioners granting permission under section 20 of the education act for establishing the institution and forwarding the petitioners case to the national council for permanent affiliation extends beyond december, 1986, it is open to the director to refuse to allot trainees to such an institute.the writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. no costs. government pleader's fee rs. 100/- in each.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Affairs of the private Industrial Training Institutes in this State are in a chaos. A stage has come to property regulate the functioning of these private institutions. It is said that most of the institutions are functioning under Orders of this court without permission from the authorities concerned. If there is a mushroom growth of these institutions causing jeopardy to the interests of the students entering these institutions, it should be checked forthwith. However, genuine institutions imparting vocational and technical education should be encouraged to function properly. What is required is a sympathetic understanding of the difficulties, if any, being experienced by these institutions and to devise proper remedial measures. Opportunities should be provided to these institutions to make up short falls noticed so that permanent affiliation of these institutions to the National Council for Vocational Training, New Delhi ('the National Council' for short) is assured.

2. All these writ petitions are, filed by private Industrial Training Institutions (numbering a little over 70), established at various places, seeking two reliefs. The first relief is that these institutions should be granted permanent affiliation of certain trades and units to the National Council. The second relief claimed is that they should be allotted students in different Trades for the academic year 1986-87.

3. Realising that there is need for setting up a central agency for co-ordinating the training programmes in the country bringing about uniformity of standards and awarding certificate of proficiency in craftsmanship on all-India basis, the National Council was established by the Government of India. The National Council is required to administer Craftsmen. Training Scheme, the objects of which are (i) to ensure a steady flow of skilled workers in different trades for the industry : (ii) to raise the quality and quantity of industrial production by systematic training of workers; and (iii) to reduce unemployment among the educated youth by equipping them for suitable industrial employment.

4. The Government of India had also decided to transfer the administration of the training organisation under the Directorate General of Resettlement & Employment to the control of the State, Government concerned, retaining for themselves the function of co-ordinating craftsmen training and -laying down the training policy. The National Council is entrusted with the functions related to establishing and awarding of National Trade Certificates for Craftsmen, prescribing standards and curriculum for craftsmen training in the technical and vocational trades throughout the country and assisting the Central Government on the overall training policy and programmes.

5. At the State level the Director of Employment and Training carries out the policy of the National Council and implements its decisions in respect of syllabi, equipment, scale of accommodation, duration of courses and method of training. The Director of Employment and Training also, arranges for ad hoc or periodical inspection of the training institutes in the State and ensure that the standards prescribed by the National Council are being followed.

6. With the object of training students in vocational and technical education, Institutes are set up not only by the State Government but also by several private agencies. The petitioners herein belong to the category of private agencies who had set up Industrial Training Institutions at various places for the aforesaid purpose. These institutions are set up between 1979 and 1984. Learned Government Pleader claims that these institutions are set up without securing any permission from the Government under Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and formal permissions of the Director of Employment and Training have not been obtained to set up by any of the petitioner-institutions. Learned Government pleader further claims that when the Government declined to allot students for training in these institutions, these institutions approached this Court and obtained directions for allotment of students and to send Standing Committees for inspection and consider the question of granting permanent affiliation to these institutions. Pursuant to such Sectioners students were allotted up to and including the academic year 1985-86 and Standing Committees were also deputed to inspect the institutes and report whether the norms prescribed by the National Council are satisfied.

7. Learned Government Pleader submits that the National Council reviewed the affiliation procedure of Industrial Training Institutes in February, 1985 and issued directions to implement the following policy at State level: (i) Alt Institutes, which had been started in August, 1982 session and before and which could not achieve requisite standards as per prescribed norms of the National Council for permanent affiliation by August, 1985 would stand derecognised. No new admissions shall be made in such Institutes in August, 1985 session unless they get permanent affiliation during 1985-86; (ii) New Industrial Training Institutes started with the permission of the concerned State Director, in August, 1983 and August 1984 session, would be allowed to make up their short falls till August, 1986 and August, 1987 respectively. If they do not achieve the requisite standards as per prescribed norms, they would also stand derecognised by the end of the year 1986 and 1987; and (iii) No New I.T.Is. should henceforth be started from the August, 1985 session onwards, unless all the requisite infrastructural facilities, as per prescribed norms, are made available. Such I.T.Is. should qualify for permanent affiliation to the National Council before their trainees could be permitted to appear for the All India Trade Test under the Craftsmen Training Scheme.

8. Learned Government Pleader classifies the petitioner-institutions into two categories. The first category consists of 25 institutions which had been started in August. 1982 Session and before, which were not recommended by the Standing Committees for permanent affiliation to the National Council as they failed to achieve the requisite standards prescribed. According to the learned Government pleader, all these 25 institutions would stand derecognised automatically. The second category relates to the Industrial Training Institutes which had been started in August, 1983/August. 1984 sessions. A list of 49 institutions is filed by the learned Government Pleader pointing out that the Standing Committees inspecting these institutions reported that the institutions did not achieve the requisite standards as per prescribed norms and consequently they cannot acquire permanent affiliation to the National Council. It is urged that the petitioners herein belong to the above two categories. While the first category of 25 institutions stood already derecognised, the second category stand the risk of being derecognised before the end of the year 1986-87. It is stated that if trainees are allotted to these Institutions in 1986, the course of study would extend to the year 1987 and beyond and it will not be possible to allow the. institutions function after derecognition. It is, therefore, submitted that the Director of Employment and Training found it impossible to allot trainees to any of the petitioner-institution herein because of the above policy enunciated by the National Council.

9. M/s. K. Ramesh Babu, K. V. Subrahmanya Narsu, J. Siddayya and K. P. V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the various petitioners herein, refuted the allegations made by the learned Government Pleader. It is urged that the petitioner-institutions are under no obligation to secure permission under Section 20 of the Education Act as vocational and technical education, according to the learned counsel, do not fall within the purview of the Education Act. It is said that vocational and technical education isa central subject occurring in the Union list of the Schedule VII. It is also urged that no permission is required to set up Industrial Training Institutes from the Director of Employment and Training, or for that matter from the National Council under the Craftsmen Training Scheme. At the same time it is pointed out that some of the petitioners did apply to the Director of Employment and Training for permission to set up the Institutions but the Director failed to take any action in respect of those applications. Finding that the Director was not moving in the matter, the Training Institutes started functioning as considerable sums of money were already invested in the purchase of equipment etc. It is submitted that no useful purpose would have been served by these institutions remaining idle after equipping themselves with all the infrastructure and it was at that stage that the petitioners approached this Court earlier and secured directions to allot students etc. Learned counsel, therefore, submit that the petitioners cannot be blamed in the matter. It is further submitted that there was inordinate delay in deputing the Standing Committees for inspection of the infrastructural facilities etc., provided by these institutes and these Standing Committees inspected only in June/July 1986 and submitted reports to the Director of Employment and Training regarding permanent affiliation. Learned counsel make a grievance that the reports of the Standing Committees are not made available to the petitioner-Institutions and consequently the recommendations of the Standing Committees regarding permanent affiliation are hot known to the petitioners. It is submitted that if the petitioner-Institutions are derecognised at this stage it would cause considerable hardship to the Institutes as well as the trainees and no opportunities should be provided to set right the defects so that permanent affiliation to the National Council Can be granted. Learned counsel submitted that if trainees are not allotted for the 1986 session, which has just commenced, the Institutes will have to remain idle without any training programme causing serious inconvenience and hardship. It is claimed that several lakhs of students have applied for admission into various Trades and Units and there is any amount of need to allow these students to take the courses of study applied for by them. Finally learned counsel claimed that the Government Training Institutes stand on the same footing as the private institutes and even in the case of Government Institutes the infrastructural facilities were in no sense superior to those offered by the private Institutes. Under pressure from the Government the Standing Committees have been recommending permanent affiliation of the Government Institutes to the National Council although qualitatively they stand in no superior position. It is said that the Government is practising hostile discrimination between the Government IT.Is. and private I.T.Is. and trainees are being allotted only to Government I.T.Is. rejecting the claims of the private institutions. Learned counsel also claimed that the procedure regarding allotment of trainees is something new in this State and in no other State there is a procedure of a selection committee at the district level allotting trainees. It is said that in other States the Institutes are at liberty to admit trainees.

10. Replying briefly to the aforesaid allegations, learned Government Pleader pointed out that while it may be true in a small number of cases some kind of scrappy applications were made to the Director of Employment & Training, they were not made in the prescribed form and prescribed particulars were not furnished and consequently no action could be taken by the Director on such unhelpful applications. Learned Government Pleader also pointed out that this Court directed the petitioners while disposing of Writ Petition No. 8175 of 1985 and batch of 21st of August, 1985, to apply for permission under Section 20 of the Education Act; nevertheless the petitioners did not care to make any applications as directed. About 10 or 12 persons, who made the applications pursuant to the directions of this court, merely addressed letters to the Director of Employment and Training that they are making the applications as directed by the Court. No particulars or information in the prescribed form were furnished. Learned Government Pleader submits that these private I.T.Is. are demonstrating an arrogant and unhelpful attitude and the Government felt that it can no longer permit the growth of institutions which defy statutory provisions and fail to achieve the requisite standards prescribed by the National Council for permanent affiliation. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submitted that all these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the above said reasons.

11. The first question to be resolved is whether permission under Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act is required for setting up the Industrial Training Institutions.

12. Learned counsel contend that technical and vocational education is a central subject occurring in entry 65 of List I (Union List) of the 7th Schedule and consequently the State Government cannot exercise jurisdiction under the Education Act.

13. Entry 65 of the Union List of the 7th Schedule reads as under : --

'65. Union agencies and institutions for -

(a) Professional, vocational or technical training, including the training of Police Officers; or

(b) the promotion of special studies or research; or

(c) scientific or technical assistance in the investigation or detection of crime.'

Entry 25 of List No. III (Concurrent List) of the 7th Schedule may also be extracted here : --

'25. Education, including technical education, medical education and Universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List 1; vocational and technical training of labour.'

14. It is pointed out that entry 25 appearing in the Concurrent List is subject to the provisions of entry 65 of the Union List and consequently what governs the matter under consideration is entry 65 of the Union List. It is therefore, urged that the State Government cannot concurrently exercise any power over technical or vocational education as that is entirely a central subject governed by entry 65 of the Union List.

15. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. It is necessary to notice that entry 65 does not refer to the vocational or technical training as such. It refers to Union agencies and institutions for professional, vocational or technical training. Prom the description given in entry 65 of the Union List it is clear that it is only an agency or an institution established for professional, vocational or technical training that falls within the Central subject against entry 65, and not the professional, vocational or technical training as such. It cannot be overlooked that the Union Government had established a number of agencies and institutions for regulating the study of professional, vocational and technical education. Undoubtedly the agencies created by the Union or the Institutions created by the Union for the purpose of regulating professional, vocational! or technical training come within the purview of entry 65 of the Union List. The education as such in professional, vocational or technical courses does not fall under entry 65. On the contrary, it falls under entry 25 of the Concurrent List. The qualification that entry 25 of the Concurrent List is subject to entry 65 of the Union List is for the limited purpose of stating that any agency or institution established by the Union falling within the purview of entry 65 shall not be governed by entry 25 of the Concurrent List. In my opinion, the qualification occurring in entry 25 of the Concurrent List is not to put professional, vocational or technical training as such in the Union List. It seems to me, therefore, that the Vocational and technical education fall within the scope of entry 25 of the Concurrent List and the State Government has, therefore, power to exercise in regard to these items of education.

16. Section 2 of the Education Act contains definitions. Clause (16) defines the expression 'Education' as meaning general education technical education, physical education, etc. Thus, Industrial Training Institutions imparting technical and vocational education fall within the meaning of 'Education' as defined in Section 2(16) of the Education Act. It is then imperative that permission for establishment of all such educational institutions should be obtained from the State Government as required by Section 20 of the Education Act. Having regard to the above facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are under an obligation to secure permission from the State Government under Section 20 of the Education Act for establishment of the Industrial Training Institutions. The omission to obtain such permission would be fatal to the continued existence of the petitioner Institutions.

17. I may also, in this connection, invite attention to the judgment of my learned brother Ramanujulu Naidu, J. in W. P. No. 8175 of 1985 and batch, dated 21st August, 1985. That batch of writ petitions, disposed of by my learned brother, relates to Industrial Training Institutes and an identical contention was urged before the learned Judge that all the institutions concerned therein did not apply for and obtain permission under Section 20 of the Education Act. Dealing with the above contention, the learned Judge observed.

'I am, however, of the opinion that the institutions must obtain permission under Section 20 of the Act to run the same. The institutions shall apply for permission within two months from today and on receipt of such applications, the State Government may accord permission following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.'

I am in respectful agreement with the view of the learned single Judge that the Institutions, such as the petitioners, are squarely governed by Section 20 of the Education Act. I may also refer to the decision of a Division Bench in W. P. No. 6143/83, dt. 26th August, 1986. The question which arose for consideration in that case was whether the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act (Act V of 1983) and the Rules made there under are applicable to Rural Vocational Training Centre, an institution of the petitioner's kind. The contention that Act V of 1983 is not applicable is based more or lesson analogous grounds as are urged in the present case that the State Government has no power to legislate in these matters. The Division Bench declined to countenance the objection and upheld the power of the State Government to legislate in the matter. The aforementioned decision of the Division Bench squarely covers the matter under consideration in the present case as it is analogous.

18. The Director of Employment and Training is the competent authority, as per the Rules framed under the A.P. Education Act, to grant permission for establishing Industrial Training Institutes. It is imperative, therefore, that all the petitioner institutions should apply for and obtain formal permissions from the Director of Employment and Training for establishing the institutions. It is open to the petitioner-institutions to make appropriate applications, in the prescribed form, to the Director of Employment and Training and furnish all the required particulars and information to enable the Director to consider the applications for the grant of permission.

19. Considering the fact that these institutions had been established between 1979-84, it would be equitable to consider the applications of the institutions for permission. In view of the representation made by the learned Government Pleader before me that the Standing Committees had already inspected the petitioner-institutions and submitted their reports, it would be appropriate that the Director of Employment and Training should communicate to each one of the petitioners herein the recommendations of the Standing Committees and point out, in particular, the shortfalls or the deficiencies pointed out. The petitioners should be given an opportunity to rectify the matters and become eligible for permission under Section 20 of the Education Act and also for permanent affiliation to the National Council. Having regard to these imperatives, the following directions are given :

(a) All the petitioners herein shall, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this Sectioner, make applications to the Director of Employment and Training in the prescribed form and furnish the required information and particulars for granting permission to establish the institution.

(b) The Director of Employment and Training shall forthwith, without waiting for the receipt of the applications, referred to in item (a) supra, forward to the petitioners, if not already done so, a gist of the recommendations of the Standing Committee, pointing out in particular the shortfalls and the deficiencies. The Director shall give an opportunity to each one of the petitioner-institutions to rectify the matters before 15th November, 1986.

(c) On or before 15th Nov., 1986 each one of the petitioners shall communicate, in writing, to the Director regarding the rectification of the matters referred to by the Standing Committee. It will be open to the Director to satisfy himself that the petitioner-institutions rectified the matters.

(d) After satisfying himself, as above mentioned, the Director shall pass ah Sectioner in writing by 30th Nov., 1986 granting formal permission for establishing the institutions under Section 20 of the Education Act and also refer the petitioners' cases to the National Council for permanent affiliation.

(e) If the Director is satisfied that any of the petitioner-institutions did not rectify the matters referred to by the Standing Committee, the Director shall pass an Sectioner, in writing, refusing to grant permission under Section 20 of the Education Act giving appropriate reasons. If the petitioner is aggrieved against such an Sectioner, it will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in the matter.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioners made a grievance that in several cases where the recommendations of the Standing Committees were communicated, the objections are vague and inexplicable. It is stated that unless specific omissions are pointed out, it will be difficult for the petitioners to rectify the same. It is true that unless matters are specifically referred, the petitioners will not be in a position to rectify the same. The Director shall, therefore, take care to see that the matters requiring rectification are specifically communicated and the petitioners are put on proper notice regarding the same.

21. The aforesaid directions dispose of the matter regarding permission to the petitioner-institutions for establishing the institutions and compliance with the procedure for permanent affiliation to the National Council. It only remains to deal with the petitioners' contention that trainees may be allotted to these institutions pending the above formalities being gone through Learned counsel point out that the 1986 session has just started and unless the Government allots trainees to the First year. and Second Year courses of study straightway, it will be difficult for the petitioner-institutions to proceed with the teaching schedule. Learned Government Pleader resists the above plea of the petitioners. It is contended that it will be fatal to allot trainees to the petitioner-institutions, for the respective courses of study unless the petitioner-institutions are recognised and there is a definite possibility of the petitioner-institutions being affiliated to the National Council. As already observed, learned Government Pleader pointed out that the one year course of study commencing in the year 1986 would end in 1987and the two year course of study would end in 1988. If the institutions arc eventually derecognised because of the failure on the part of the petitioner institutions to comply with the aforesaid directions of the court, it would then be difficult to resume the students from the, respective courses of study and re-allot them to other the institutions. Learned Government pleader stated that if the petitioner-institutions stand chance of recognition and affiliation following the aforementioned directions of the court, it would be possible for the Director of Employment and Training to allot trainees in December, 1986, subject to availability of students. It is said that there will be no serious inconvenience to the teaching schedule even if admissions are made in Dec. 1986.

22. I am inclined to uphold the objection of the learned Government Pleader. It serves no purpose to allot trainees to the petitioner-institutions to the respective courses of study. Unless there is an imminent possibility of these institutions complying with the formalities for recognition and affiliation. The directions given by me above would ensure a decision one way or the other by the end of November, 1986. All that is required is that the Director of Employment and Training should act earnestly and speedily in the matter. In respect of all such institutions which may be recognised by Director of Employment and Training by the end of Nov. 1986 pursuant to the directions given above, there will be no difficulty in allotting trainees for the respective courses of study in Dec. 1986. The Director of Employment and Training is accordingly directed to speed up the process by implementing the directions given by the court and determine the eligibility of the petitioners herein to recognition and permanent affiliation. On formal permission under Section 20 of the Education Act being accorded and petitioners' cases referred to the National council for permanent affiliation, the Director of Employment and Training shall allot trainees to the Institutions in Dec., 1986. It will be open to the Director to refuse to allot trainees if, in compliance with the directions given by this Court, he either refuses to accord permission under Section 20 of the Education Act, for establishing the institution for any reason whatsoever, or finds that the institution is not entitled to permanent affiliation to the National Council in spite of the opportunity given to the institution concerned to rectify the matters pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court.

23. A minor controversy is raised at the time of hearing regarding the allotment of students in the year 1986 to the two year course of study. Learned Government Pleader contends that the trainees admitted into two years course of study in 1984 session will be completing in 1986. It is submitted that admission of trainees will not be given to the two years course of study every year as the infrastructural facilities are not adequate. Sri Ramesh Babu raises strong objection to this plea. He points out that for the two years course of study trainees are admitted every year till now and there is no reason why a different procedure should be adopted in the year 1986. It is said that trainees are so allotted in the institutions run by the Government and there should be no discrimination between the Government run I.T.Is. and the private managed I.T.Is. I do not have the entire material before me to consider the correctness or otherwise of the plea raised by the learned Government Pleader in this regard. The petitioners are directed to make appropriate representations to the Director of Employment and Training in this regard pointing out to him the established procedure so that he may give effect to the same procedure as was in existence till now without effecting any change. There should also be no discrimination in this matter between the Government run I.T.Is. and the private managed I.T.Is. like the petitioner-institutions. If, after a debate in the matter between the Director of Employment and Training and the petitioners herein, differences should prevail and the Director should refuse to allot trainees to the two years course of study on the plea taken by the learned Government Pleader, it will be open to the petitioners to specifically challenge the decision of the Director in that regard.

24. If in the particular facts and circumstances of any institute, the Director thinks it expedient or necessary to grant more time for rectifying the matters pointed out by the Standing Committee, it may be open to him to do so notwithstanding the directions given by this Court above. If on account of the further time given by the Director issue of Sectioners granting permission under Section 20 of the Education Act for establishing the institution and forwarding the petitioners case to the National Council for permanent affiliation extends beyond December, 1986, it is open to the Director to refuse to allot trainees to such an Institute.

The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Government Pleader's fee Rs. 100/- in each.