ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present batch of writ petitions is being disposed of by this common order and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21364/2019 (Eminent Industrial Training Center and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) has been taken as a lead case. 2. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-institutions whereby prayer has been sought that a direction may be given to the respondents to grant scholarship to the students, who have been admitted by these institutions. 3. The petitioners also felt aggrieved by order dated 09.10.2019 whereby decision was taken by the respondents to put on hold the online applications of as many as 423 private ITI Institutions throughout the State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-institutions Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Khan submitted that the petitioner-Institutions are running ITI Institutions after obtaining due permission of the competent Authority-State Government and other Authorities. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner-institutions, after due compliance of the provisions of establishing ITI Institutions, admitted the students and such admitted students were entitled for grant of scholarship and online applications were submitted by these students, however the respondents in the arbitrary manner have not accepted the applications of the students, for grant of scholarship and the decision has been taken in discriminatory and arbitrary manner to deprive the petitioner-institutions. 4A. Learned counsel further submitted that initially when inspection was carried out on 06.09.2019 by the respondents, the admission process was going on and as such it was not possible that all the students could be present at the time of such inspection. Learned counsel further submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-institutions where certain deficiencies were pointed out, however the said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner-institutions giving their explanations and asserting that no violation of any norms for establishing college has been committed by the petitioner-institutions. 5. Learned counsel submitted that without considering the reply to the show cause notice, the respondents proceeded in an arbitrary manner and deprived the students for grant of scholarship. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Dy. G.C. submitted that the respondents had decided to carry out the inspection throughout the State of all the institutions including the petitioner-institutions. 7. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Dy. G.C. submitted that the respondents had decided to carry out the inspection throughout the State of all the institutions including the petitioner-institutions. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the inspection report has been placed on record as Annexure-R-1/3 whereby deficiencies were found in respect of all the petitioner-institutions. 8. Learned counsel submitted that after the inspection report was analyzed by the State Government, as many as 423 private ITI Institutions were put in different categories and all the petitioner-institutions fall in 'Category-D' where either staff was not available at all or the students were found absent. 9. Learned counsel submitted that after inspection report the show cause notice was given to the petitioner-institutions and in show cause notice given, it was specifically pointed out that even the building in which the petitioner-institutions were running, was not independent building and there were several other institutions which were running in the same building. 10. Learned counsel has referred to the affiliation norms for ITI Institutions for the year 2018, issued by the Directorate General Training (DGT), Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneur ship, New Delhi. Counsel submitted that the petitioner-institutions have to fulfill the requirements which have been set out in the said policy and if such conditions were not fulfilled; the petitioner-institutions cannot be granted scholarship for the students which they have admitted in the institutions. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that after show cause notice served upon the institutions concerned, the second inspection was carried out on 18.12.2019 and again the petitioner-institutions were found lacking in respect of fulfilling the conditions for establishing and running the private ITI institutions. Learned counsel submitted that the State Government, considering the gross irregularities being committed by the private ITI institutions, had to take a decision to put the scholarship on hold by not permitting the students to get the benefit for which they were entitled to. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This Court finds that the decision of the State Government is a rational decision that the private institutions had indulged in violating the norms for establishing the private ITI institutions and accordingly, after carrying out the inspection in the entire State of Rajasthan, it was decided that 423 private ITI institutions had indulged themselves in gross violation of norms' for running the said institutions. There is no discrimination or arbitrariness on the part of the State Government if on the basis of inspection report, different institutions have been identified. 14. This Court finds that on a given date when inspection was carried out, if the staff was not available or students were absent, the authorities were within their domain to form the opinion with respect to violation of the requirement of running institutions. 15. This Court further finds that the respondents have not committed any error in putting all these institutions on hold as they did not comply with the requisite conditions. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the State Government. 16. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner-institutions submitted that the petitioners-institutions are ready to fulfill all the conditions and they are further ready to satisfy the Authorities that all the students have been admitted through proper method and further all the facilities are available with them for running the institutions. 17. This Court without interfering with the decision of the State Government to withhold the grant of scholarship, deems it proper to ask the petitioner-institutions to approach the respondents and satisfy them that they will fulfill all the conditions for running the institutions and further the students have been admitted by a legal method. 18. The petitioner-institutions if approach the respondents within a period of two weeks, the respondents Authorities are directed to carry out the inspection within a period of two weeks thereafter and they will satisfy themselves as whether norms are complied with or not by the petitioner-institutions. 19. 18. The petitioner-institutions if approach the respondents within a period of two weeks, the respondents Authorities are directed to carry out the inspection within a period of two weeks thereafter and they will satisfy themselves as whether norms are complied with or not by the petitioner-institutions. 19. This Court makes it clear that in case the petitioner-institutions fulfill all the conditions of running the private ITI institutions in a proper manner as per the norms prescribed and the students have been admitted by a legal method, the petitioner-institutions may be considered for grant of scholarship for the legally admitted students. In case, the petitioner-institutions do not comply with the requirement, the State Government is further free to take legal action against all the petitioner-institutions. 20. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. A copy of this order be separately placed in each petition.