W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 1 of 15

$~J-1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 01.09.2025

Judgment delivered on: 11.02.2026

+ W.P.(C) 10825/2025 and CM APPL. 44756/2025

SHERE PUNJAB PRVATE ITI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Ravi Kant, Mr. Mayank

Manish, Mr. Vineet Upadhyay, Mr.

Ayush Aanand and Mr. Jayant

Dubey, Advs.

versus

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC with Mr.

Rajat Dubey and Mr. Shashank

Pandey, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

1.The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“(a) Issue Writ of Certiorari for quashing the de-affiliation

order dated 20.09.2024 and minutes of Appellate Committee

Meeting dated 01.04.2025 circulated through the Office

Memorandum dated 29.04.2025, whereby, the Appeal of the

Petitioner institution was rejected by the Appellate Committee of

the respondent confirming the de-affiliation order dated

20.09.2024; and;

(b) Issue Writ of Mandamus to the respondent to issue the

restoration of affiliation order from session 2025-2026 for running

the 6 Units of Electrician Trade and 2 Units of Welder Trade.”

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 2 of 15

2.The grievance articulated in the present petition is essentially

against the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed by

respondent/Directorate General of Training (‘DGT’) de-affiliating the

petitioner-ITI, as well as, the minutes of Appellate Committee Meeting

dated 01.04.2025 circulated through the Office Memorandum dated

29.04.2025, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-ITI against the

impugned order was rejected by the Appellate Committee of the

respondent.

3.The brief facts as noted from the petition and material placed on

record are that the petitioner-ITI was granted affiliation by the respondent

videits letter dated 06.12.2012 with permission to run 2 Units in

‘Electrician Trade’ and 2 Units in ‘Wielder Trade’. At the time of passing

of the impugned order of de-affiliation, petitioner-ITI was running 6 Units

in ‘Electrician Trade’ and 2 Units in ‘Welder Trade’.

4.Somewhere in 2022, a complaint was filed by father of one of the

students against the petitioner-ITI alleging that the petitioner-ITI for the

purpose of admission had charged excess fee and had misled the

complainant to admit his son into a trade i.e. ‘Diesel Mechanic’, which

was not available for offer at the petitioner-ITI.

5.The complaint was inquired into by Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Deputy

Director, Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, who

submitted its reportvideletter dated 16.09.2022. In the said report, strict

action was proposed against the petitioner-ITI.

6.Accordingly, on 01.10.2022, petitioner-ITI was issued a show cause

notice (‘SCN’) calling upon it to submit its written reply within 21 days

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 3 of 15

and to show cause as to why action be not initiated to de-affiliate the

petitioner-ITI. The SCN was responded to by petitionervideits reply

within the stipulated time.

7.The State Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Committee

(‘SSDEC’) in its meeting held on 20.02.2023 considered the reply of

petitioner and decided to conduct a joint inspection at the petitioner ITI.

8.In the meanwhile, the mother of the student on whose behest the

complaint was filed, submitted an affidavit before SSDEC on 20.07.2023

deposing that on account of demise of her husband / complainant, as well

as, her son moving abroad for higher studies, she does not wish to proceed

with the complaint.

9.Thereafter, a joint physical inspection was carried out by the

respondent at the petitioner-ITI. Basis the joint inspection report, as well

as, regard being had to the mother’s affidavit, the Regional Directorate of

Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (‘RDSDE’), Punjabvide

communication dated 21.08.2023 submitted the following remarks to

Additional Director – DTE & IT, Government of Punjab:

“As per the affidavit given by wife of the complainant (who has

died), she does not want to take any further action in this matter.

The committee is satisfied with the infrastructure, tools and

equipment and workshop/class room area position. Therefore, the

ITI may be allowed to start its units. The DTE&IT, Punjab may

however ensure that a transparent mechanism should be in place

for private it is on fees deposit and refund to the trainee in case

he/she discontinues training. Copy of joint inspection report is

attached herewith.”

10.Subsequently, the case of petitioner-ITI was considered by SSDEC

in its 3

rd

meeting held on 10.10.2023, which recommended de-affiliation

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 4 of 15

of petitioner-ITI. Accordingly, the respondent passed the impugned order

dated 20.09.2024.

11.Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.09.2024, petitioner-ITI

filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana being

W.P.(C) 29634/2024. The High Courtvideits order dated 08.01.2025

disposed of the writ petition relegating the petitioner herein to file an

appeal before the Appellate Committee, without going into the merits of

the case.

12.On 20.01.2025, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the

Appellate Committee / Grievance Redressal Cell of the respondent/DGT,

which dismissed the appealvideimpugned order dated 01.04.2025, which

was communicated to petitioner-ITI under the cover of letter of Appellate

Committee dated 29.04.2025. In this backdrop, the present petition has

been filed.

13.Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf

of petitioner-ITI, at the outset, submits that the impugned order is on the

face of it arbitrary having passed in contravention to the principles of

proportionality.

14.He submits that in the impugned order no weightage is given to the

remark made by RDSDE Punjab in its communication dated 21.08.2023 to

the effect that“the committee is satisfied with the infrastructure, tools and

equipment and workshop/class room area position. Therefore, the ITI may

be allowed to start its units”.

15.He submits that post the said positive report, neither a fresh SCN

was issued nor a chance of hearing was given to petitioner-ITI. The

petitioner-ITI was then finally heard at the time of appeal.

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 5 of 15

16.He submits that at Sr. No./ Point No.8 of the order dated 05.02.2024

by virtue of which de-affiliation of petitioner-ITI was recommended, it is

mentioned that the respondent considered two inspection reports whilst

coming to the conclusion of de-affiliation, however, the fact of the matter

is that only one joint inspection was carried out of the petitioner-ITI by the

Standing Committee on 05.07.2023 that too in favour of petitioner-ITI.

Therefore, the observations made in the impugned orders are perverse and

contrary to record.

17.He submits that even if the allegations in the complaint are believed

to be true for the sake of argument, though the matter already stands

settled, the punishment eventually imposed upon petitioner-ITI is not in

consonance with principles of proportionality.

18.Substantiating his plea on the doctrine of proportionality, he

submits that the petitioner-ITI had already been de-listed from the portal

of approved private ITI’s since Academic Session 2023-2024 and the

entire functioning of the institute is in a state of halt since then. Thus,

petitioner-ITI has already faced the music of impugned order/letter dated

20.09.2024 retrospectively. Moreover, the impugned order dated

20.09.2024 does not specify the future period of de-affiliation.

19.He submits that since the joint inspection dated 05.07.2023 came in

favour of petitioner-ITI, even if SSDEC had to disagree with the same, it

was imperative on its part to have issued a SCN to petitioner-ITI, which

was not done in the present case.

20.He further submits that the genesis of initiation of proceedings

against petitioner-ITI was a complaint filed at the behest of a student’s

father, which was subsequently withdrawn by the mother of the said

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 6 of 15

student. In this backdrop, the very foundation of proceedings having been

knocked out by such withdrawal, respondent-DGT, on this ground alone,

ought not to have taken any action against petitioner-ITI.

21.He lastly submits that respondent has failed to adhere to timelines

provided for completion of de-affiliation process in its ‘Standard

Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) for De-affiliation’ dated 14.11.2022,

according to which, it was incumbent upon respondent to complete the

entire process roughly within 120 days from the issuance of show cause

notice.

22.Per contra, Ms. Neha Rastogi, learned Senior Panel Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent-DGT at the outset, invites attention of

the Court to the Affiliation Norms for ITI’s for the year 2018 (‘Affiliation

Norms-2018’), more particularly to its Instruction 4.1.5, to contend that

violation of affiliation norms or any other violation or malpractices entails

consequence of de-affiliation for a minimum period of three years.

23.She submits that petitioner-ITI cannot take the shelter of

compromise which took place between the complainant’s wife and the

petitioner-ITI for seeking quashing of an order which is otherwise legal.

She submits that the proceedings against petitioner-ITI pre-dates the

compromise. Therefore, a compromise between third parties cannot be a

defence to escape from the liability for any mischief that the petitioner-ITI

has committed.

24.She submits that petitioner-ITI had admitted the complainant’s son

in the ‘Electrician Trade’ but the fee receipts clearly exhibit the fact that

student was admitted in the ‘Diesel Mechanic Trade’, which petitioner-ITI

was not affiliated to offer / run. Hence, the action of petitioner-ITI was

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 7 of 15

found to be malicious in nature, which formed a ground for de-affiliation

in accordance with the Affiliation Norms-2018.

25.She further submits that in the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C)

29634/2024 filed by petitioner-ITI before the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana, petitioner-ITI had clearly admitted that it had re-admitted the

complainant’s son to some other instituteviz. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. However,

petitioner-ITI did not possess the requisite authority to transfer the trainees

on their own to any other institute without seeking approval from the

concerned authorities. This also shows that petitioner-ITI was involved in

more than one malpractice.

26.She submits that the respondent has acted in consonance with

Affiliation Norms-2018, therefore, impugned order is reasonable, fair and

legal. As a corollary, debarment of petitioner-ITI for a period of 3 years,

which is for a minimum period, cannot be termed as excessive or

disproportionate, rather it is absolutely commensurate to petitioner-ITI’s

actions and malpractices.

27.She lastly submits that if petitioner-ITI is granted a relief and the

impugned order is set aside despite its involvement in mal-practices, the

same will set a bad example for ITI ecosystem and set an unfavourable

precedent in handling of such complaints.

28.I have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the

material on record.

29.The challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order of de-

affiliation dated 20.09.2024 passed by the respondent whereby the

petitioner institute has been de-affiliated w.e.f. Academic Session 2024-

2025. Though the period for which de-affiliation would remain in

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 8 of 15

operation has not been mentioned in the said impugned order, but

Instructions 4.1.5 of the Affiliation Norms-2018 provides that de-

affiliation will be for a minimum period of three years.

30.The trigger for initiation of proceedings for penal action in the

present case was a complaint filed by father of one of the students in 2022,

who alleged that petitioner ITI had charged excess fee and had mislead the

complainant to admit his son in a Trade, i.e. ‘Diesel Mechanic’, which

was not available for offer at the petitioner-ITI.

31.The Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) for de-affiliation of

ITIs, which is on record, provides for the timelines for inquiring into a

complaint and taking disciplinary action in respect thereof. The relevant

part of the SOP reads thus: -

“

SOP for De-affiliation

1. Receipt of complaint from individual complaint:

If any complaint is received to State/RDSDE/DGT than following

SOP and timelines will be followed or proceed for de-affiliation. As

per the SSDEC order dated 28.03.2022 SSDEC will scrutinize the

complaints against ITI, will conduct joint inspection as per the norm

laid by DGT and will provide the recommendation to DGT for SCAA

approval.

Such type of De-affiliation matters has to be dealt by SSDEC, SOP

and timelines are defined SOP to give their recommendation.

Process/Activity Actor/responsibilityTimelines

If any complaint

received related to-

Violation of

affiliation norms or

any other violation

or malpractices

If any of the

documents submitted

for seeking affiliation

Show cause notice

should be served to

email id mentioned

in portal and

preferably vide speed

post also.

By RDSDE/State

Directorate

Issuance of show

cause notice (SCN)

immediately clearly

mentioning the

deficiencies in the

functioning of the

ITI.

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 9 of 15

such as, lease

deed/land ownership,

trust, electricity bills,

bank guarantee etc.

are found

forged/manipulated.

If any machinery or

equipment is found

demobilized/moved

to another ITI

without following

latest NCVT norms

or prior written

approval from DGT.

Any malpractice

related to NCVTMIS

portal

If any institute

relocated without

prior approval of

DGT or State.

The complainant will

provide his identity

proof (ID Card,

email ID, contact

number) along with

the supporting proof

in respect to the

complaint such as

photos, videos,

portal data and any

documentary proof

of ITI.

Reply to the Show

Cause Notice.

ITI 20 working days

from issuance of

Show Cause Notice

No reply : in case of

the reply within 20

working days

RDSDE/State

Directorate

For reply 5

working daysfrom

issuance of

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 10 of 15

issuance of reminder

of Show Cause

Notice. A second

SCN will be given to

ITI.

reminder Show

cause notice.

SSDEC will examine

the reply sent to ITI

and will conduct

joint inspection.

SSDEC 20 days

Joint inspection of

ITI as per norms laid

by DGT

RDSDE/State

Directorate

10 days

Joint inspection

report will be placed

in SSEDC and

SSDEC will sent its

recommendation to

TC Section, DGT

HQ.

SSDEC 20 days

Recommendation of

SSDEC/verification

report will be placed

in SCAA for final

decision

DGT 30 days

If committee decides

for continuation nof

affiliation then show

cause notice may be

dismissed.

If SCAA decides to

be affiliate the

institute then

issuance of De-

Affiliation order and

communicate to ITI

and State

Directorate along

with self experting

order clearly

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 11 of 15

mentioning the

deficiencies in the

functioning in the

said ITI.

De-affiliate the

trades/units of the

ITI from NCVT MIS

portal, this will not

allow ITI to take

admission further.

DGT Immediately after

issuance of the

affiliation orders

Once exams of all

admitted trainees

will complete then

inactive ITI and ITI

status on NCVT MIS

portal is as ‘de-

affiliated’

DGT

While De-Affiliation

closure of

Institute/surrender of

unit (s)/Trade (s)

institute and DGT

shall ensure that all

trainees enrolled

complete the training

duration and no such

admissions are

admitted.

ITI and DGT

”

(emphasis supplied)

32.A perusal of the above timelines shows that the entire process

pursuant to the receipt of complaint, which gets initiated with the issuance

of show-cause notice and culminates with the passing of an order by the

respondent needs to be concluded approximately within a period of 95

days.

33.However, in the present case, in contrast to the above timelines, the

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 12 of 15

process commenced with the issuance of show-cause notice dated

01.10.2022, but the impugned order of de-affiliation came to be passed on

20.09.2024. Clearly, it took approximately two years’ time for the show-

cause notice to culminate into an order of de-affiliation.

34.The petitioner/ITI also preferred an appeal against the impugned

order dated 20.09.2024 before the Appellate Committee on 20.01.2025,

which was rejected by the Appellate Committeevideits impugned

Minutes of Meeting dated 01.04.2025.

35.In the meanwhile, as admitted by the respondent, the functioning of

the petitioner-ITI was halted as the portal for fresh admissions in respect

of petitioner-ITI was blocked by the respondent from the Academic

Session 2023-2024 onwards. This admission by respondent has been noted

by this Court in its order dated 10.10.2025 when the matter was listed for

seeking clarification. Notably, in the said order, the factual aspect with

regard to the petitioner-ITI not being permitted to admit students from the

Academic Session 2023-2024 onwards was not disputed by the

respondent.

36.The position which thus, emerges is that, as of now the petitioner-

ITI has already been debarred from admitting fresh students for three

Academic Sessionsviz., 2023-2024; 2024-2025 and 2025-2026.

37.That apart, the Court notes that the complaint made by the

complainant was also subsequently withdrawn. Furthermore, the summary

of the joint inspection conducted at the instance of SSDEC, which was

communicated by the DGT, Punjabvideletter dated 21.08.2023 to

Additional Director, DTE & IT, Government of Punjab, clearly shows that

there was no adverse comment made in the said report, rather in the

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 13 of 15

remarks section it is recorded that the Committee is satisfied with the

infrastructure, tools and equipment and workshops/classroom area

position,besidesobserving thatan affidavit has also been given by the

wife of the complainant (who had died) that she does not want to take any

further action in the matter. Accordingly, recommendation was made that

petitioner-ITI may be allowed to start its units. Notwithstanding said

positive inspection report, SSEDC in its 3

rd

meeting held on 10.10.2023

recommended de-affiliation of petitioner/ITI, basis which the impugned

order of de-affiliation dated 20.09.2024 came to be passed.

38.In the overall conspectus of the facts noted above, this Court is of

the view that non-adherence by respondent to the timelines stipulated in

SOP for concluding the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner-ITI,

which kick-started with the issuance of show-cause notice dated

01.10.2022 has clearly caused inordinate delay in completion of the entire

process leading to passing of an order of de-affiliation, thereby causing

prejudice to petitioner-ITI.

39.As noted above, on the basis of a complaint, the show-cause notice

was issued to petitioner-ITI on 01.10.2022, but the order of de-affiliation

came to be passed only on 20.09.2024. Had the respondent adhered to the

timelines as stipulated in the SOP, the order of de-affiliation could have

been passed within a period of 95 days or at least within a reasonable time

of four months from the date of show cause notice dated 01.10.2022.

Thus, calculated the de-affiliation order could have been passed in January

2023 and the period of de-affiliation for three years would have expired on

30.01.2026.

40.But, since respondent had closed the portal for fresh admissionqua

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 14 of 15

petitioner-ITI w.e.f. Academic Session 2023-2024, thede factode-

affiliation commenced from the said Academic Session, though the formal

de-affiliation order came to be passed only on 20.09.2024.

41.In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the

period which preceded the formal de-affiliation order dated 20.09.2024,

during which the portal was blocked for the petitioner ITI practically

preventing it from making any admission for the Academic Session 2023-

2024 onwards, is ought to be counted towards the penalty of de-affiliation

of three years. If the preceding period is so counted, petitioner-ITI has

already undergone de-affiliation for a period of three years.

42.As already noted, the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 is silent as

regards the period of de-affiliation, but the Affiliation Norms-2018

provides that debarment can be for a minimum period of three years. In

the given circumstances, this Court is of the view that the debarment of

petitioner-ITI for a period of three years as a penalty, is commensurate

with the alleged malpractice.

43.This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that in the realm of

administrative law, particularly in the context of educational institutions,

de-affiliation has been termed as a ‘Civil Death’ inasmuch as such an

extreme measure does not merely affect the management, it jeopardises

the future of the students and livelihood of the staff. In this regard,

reference may be had to the observations made by the Coordinate Bench

of this Court inMount Columbus School & Ors. vs. CBSE

1

wherein it

was observed as under:

“48. .....The decision to disaffiliate an educational institution

1

2024 SCC OnLine Del 2778.

W.P.(C) 10825/2025 Page 15 of 15

is an extreme decision. It amounts to civil death.It results in

serious prejudice not only to the institution, its officers and

employees, but to the multitude of students who are being

educated within its portals. It is a decision to be taken,

therefore, in the most extreme of cases, and after rigorous and

scrupulous adherence not only to the procedure stipulated in

that regard, but also independently with the principles of

natural justiceand fair play, which would include, needless to

say, compliance with audi alteram partem.”

(emphasis supplied)

44.In view of the above discussion, without going into the legality of

the penal action taken by the respondent against the petitioner-ITI, this

Court is of the view that period of de-affiliation till the passing of this

order will meet the ends of justice.

45.The writ is thus partly allowed. Consequently, respondent is

directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner-ITI w.e.f. Academic Session

2026-27. The respondent is further directed to open its portal for fresh

admissions by the petitioner ITI for the ensuing academic session.

46.The petition, along with pending application(s), stands disposed of

in the above terms.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

FEBRUARY 11, 2026

aj