Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The prayer in these writ petitions are for a mandamus, directing the respondents to issue National Trade ‘Certificates to the 15 candidates and 70 students respectively of the petitioners’ institute and who were issued with Provisional Certificates by the 2nd respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners are that the petitioners Industrial Training Centres were established in the years 1991 and 1985 respectively. As per the guidelines issued for establishing the Industrial Training Institutes/Centres, an application has to be made before the second respondent and thereafter inspection will be conducted by the Standing Committee to verify the infrastructure available for granting affiliation, which has to be granted by the first respondent. 4. According to the petitioners, after the inspection by the Standing Committee necessary recommendations were forwarded through the second respondent and the first respondent has to consider the recommendations for the grant of affiliation in the following courses are granted abbreviation by the first respondent. “1. Electrician- (3+3) Total 6 units 2. Mech (M/V) – (3+3) Total 6 units 3. Wireman – (1+1) Total 2 units 4. Mech (R&TV) – (1+1) Total 2 units 5. Mech (R&A/C)- (1+1) Total 2 units” “1. Electrician 2 units (1+1) w.e.f. August 1996 2. Mechanic (Refrigeration & Air Conditioning) 2 units (1+1) w.e.f. August 1996” 5. According to the petitioners, the dispute is regarding the issuance of National Trade Certificates in respect of 15 students and 70 students respectively in these writ petitions and based on the inspection the respective courses were granted affiliation by the first respondent. The issue as to whether the students admitted prior to the grant of affiliation pending inspection and process can be given National Trade Certificates was considered by me in W.P.Nos. 44489, 43551 and 43552 of 2006 and W.P.No.7894 of 2007 dated 21.11.2008, wherein in paragraph 5 to 7, it is ordered as follows: “5. The contention of the first respondent is that the students admitted for the respective trades were not granted affiliation by the National Council for Vocational Training (N.C.V.T.). Hence, they are entitled to get the certificate issued by the State Council for Vocational Training only and are not entitled to get certificate from the first respondent. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the issue in these writ petitions are covered by the above referred judgment. 6. Hence, they are entitled to get the certificate issued by the State Council for Vocational Training only and are not entitled to get certificate from the first respondent. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the issue in these writ petitions are covered by the above referred judgment. 6. In the judgment made in W.P.No.21113 of 2006 dated 3.1.2007, in paragraph 8(c) onwards, it is held as follows:- “(c) As a matter of fact, the practice adopted by the first respondent in the matter of grant of affiliation, conduct of examination and the issue of Certificates, appear to be very peculiar. As per the Training Manual for ITIs and ITCs, the first respondent acts as the affiliating body and he conducts examinations and issues Certificates only through the second respondent, who is described as “The State Director”. The question papers are dispatched to the second respondent who conducts the examination. Ultimately, blank National Trade Certificates are also dispatched by the first respondent to the second respondent, who is empowered to issued those Certificates after filing up the blanks. Clause (vii) of the said Training Manual reads as follows:- “The State Director may seek permanent affiliation by forwarding the inspection report (Annexure III) to the Secretary, NCVT, New Delhi. The State Director need not wait for any instruction in this matter from Secretary, NCVT. He may grant permission to the management of the Institute to admit trainees in the trades/units which have been recommended for permanent affiliation by the Standing Committee. It should however be made clear that in case permanent affiliation is not granted, final trade test and certification would be the responsibility of respective SCVT.” The above clause makes it clear that even without waiting for orders of affiliation, the State Director can permit the courses to be commenced. (d) The first respondent has also admitted in para-17 of his counter that students can be admitted to the trades/units, for which a recommendation is made by the second respondent, subject to the grant of permanent affiliation by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, if permanent affiliation is eventually granted, the first respondent will issue National Trade Certificates (NCVT) and if permanent affiliation is refused, the second respondent will issue State Trade Certificates (SCVT). According to the first respondent, if permanent affiliation is eventually granted, the first respondent will issue National Trade Certificates (NCVT) and if permanent affiliation is refused, the second respondent will issue State Trade Certificates (SCVT). In this case, the second respondent has agreed to grant State Trade Certificates (SCVT), thereby indicating that the State Director permitted the admission of students for the two additional units for the batch 1995-1997. Ultimately, the first respondent has also granted permanent affiliation, in June 1997, though with effect from August, 1996. 9. Therefore, the following conclusions become inevitable, from the sequence of events narrated above, which are not in dispute:- (a) that the petitioner admitted students with the permission of the State Director, who is empowered to grant such permission: (b) that the students admitted against the additional units are entitled to Trade Certificates issued by SCVT; and (c) that affiliation is always granted by NCVT (first respondent), only post facto and hence neither the petitioner nor the students can be found fault with. 10. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the only objection taken by the first respondent for refusing to issue National Trade Certificates to the 1995-1997 batch of students, is illegal and the writ petition is liable to be allowed.” 11. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue National Trade Certificates for the 1995 batch of Trainees, in the trades of Electrician and Fitter, who took the examinations in July 1997 and the supplementary examinations thereafter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order, subject to the students being found otherwise eligible for the grant of the Certificates.” 7. In the light of the above decision of this court in an identical matter, the students are entitled to get Trade Certificates from the first respondent. Hence, a direction is given to the respondents to issue National Trade Certificates for the batch of trainees who appeared for the examination for which permanent affiliation is granted in the subsequent year. The respondents are directed to issue the N.C.V.T., certificates within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to verification of other details of the respective students.” 6. The respondents are directed to issue the N.C.V.T., certificates within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to verification of other details of the respective students.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in these cases are already decided in the above writ petitions and therefore, the same order may be passed. The learned counsel further submitted that one similar case which was filed earlier was dismissed namely, W.P.No.38340 of 2005 dated 06.04.2006 by a learned single Judge and the said order was challenged in W.A.No.801 of 2006 and the Division Bench of this Court dated 07.08.2009, paragraph 9 to 14 held as follows: “12. … 9. Therefore, the following conclusions become inevitable, from the sequence of events narrated above, which are not in disputes: (a) that the petitioner admitted students with the permission of the State Director, who is empowered to grant such permission; (b) that the students admitted against the additional units are entitled to Trade Certificates issued by SCVT; and (c) that affiliation is always granted by NCVT (first respondent), only post facto and hence neither the petitioner nor the students can be found fault with. 10. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the only objection taken by the first respondent for refusing to issue National Trade Certificates to the 1995-1997 batch of students, is illegal and the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 11. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue National Trade Certificates for the 1995 batch of Trainees, in the trades of Electrician and Fitter, who took the examinations in July 1997 and the supplementary examinations thereafter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order, subject to the students being found otherwise eligible for the grant of the Certificates. Following the above referred judgment, Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar allowed batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.44489, 43551 and 43552 of 2006 and W.P.No.7894 of 2007, dated 21.11.2008. We are in full agreement with the said judgment. 13. Following the above referred judgment, Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar allowed batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.44489, 43551 and 43552 of 2006 and W.P.No.7894 of 2007, dated 21.11.2008. We are in full agreement with the said judgment. 13. But unfortunately, the aforesaid decision has not been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge which has resulted in the dismissal of the writ petition.’ In the light of the above decision of this Court, in an identical matter, the students are entitled to get Trade Certificates from the first respondent. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned single Judge dated 06.4.2006 made in W.P.No.38340 of 2006 is liable to be set-aside and accordingly the same is set-aside. The writ appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Hence a direction is issued to the respondents to issue National Trade Certificates for the batch of trainees who appeared for the examination for which permanent affiliation is granted in the subsequent year. The respondents are directed to issue the N.C.V.T., certificates within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment subject to verification of other details of the respective students.” 7. The learned counsel also submitted that as against the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.801 of 2006 dated 07.08.2009, the first respondent filed the Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.No.3596 of 2010 and the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.03.2010 and therefore, the Division Bench order arriving at the judgment of mine dated 21.11.2008 has become final and the same order may be passed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents are unable to dispute the said submission. 9. In the light of the order passed by me, the Division Bench of this Court and the order passed in the Special Leave Petition, these writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. The first respondent is directed to iassue the National Trade Certificates to the students of the petitioners, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petitions are allowed with the above direction. No cost.