JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 02.12.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14078/2016 titled as The Deshraj Pvt. ITI and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., whereby the writ petition was disposed of with certain clarificatory directions. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Aradhana Swami, has submitted that by way of the present appeal, a challenge is made to the impugned order dated 02.12.2020 to the extent that the impugned condition no.2 issued vide the said order, requires the private ITIs which were established or which were already running from Academic Session 2018 onward to furnish bank guarantees as desired by the Government of India and implemented by the Government of Rajasthan. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the respondent-authorities possess no jurisdiction to impose upon the petitioners and like institutions, the condition of depositing performance bank guarantees to the tune of Rs.50,000/-per each unit, as mentioned at Serial No. 10 of the order dated 04.06.2018 and communication dated 14.08.2019, passed and issued by the Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan and the concerned Department, respectively. 3. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant-institutions are undertaking the encompassing and integral task of imparting education, being affiliated with the National Council for Vocational Training. Hence, the asking of bank performance guarantee by the private ITIs is not legally sustainable in the eyes of the law, especially in light of the fact that the said requirement is not supported by any rule and/or regulation, being devoid of authority under any Act warranting the imposition of the said condition. Lastly, it was also argued that prior to the year 2018, no condition mandating the furnishing of performance bank guarantee was in operation. 4. Per contra, Mr. C.K. Saini, AAG has argued that the impugned order dated 02.12.2020 is passed in accordance with the settled position of law and calls for no interference of this Court. Lastly, it was also argued that prior to the year 2018, no condition mandating the furnishing of performance bank guarantee was in operation. 4. Per contra, Mr. C.K. Saini, AAG has argued that the impugned order dated 02.12.2020 is passed in accordance with the settled position of law and calls for no interference of this Court. In support of the imposition of the said impugned condition to furnish performance bank guarantees, learned AAG submitted that the purpose to obtain such a bank guarantee was to exclusively fasten the responsibility of successfully completing the training of students upon the ITIs, especially in situations wherein the ITIs reach a decision to close/shut the institution in the middle of the ongoing academic session, then in such an event, the performance bank guarantee could be encashed/utilized to conduct the training of the students for the remaining session forthwith. It was subsequently clarified that upon depositing the performance bank guarantees, the ITIs complete the training of the students as per their own accord. 4. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides and perused through the record of the instant appeal. 5. At the outset, it is observed that while passing the impugned order dated 02.12.2020, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the following material aspects, necessary for the just and efficacious adjudication of the dispute at hand, namely:- 5.1 That vide letter dated 31.07.2014, the Government of India had categorically specified that no State Government shall frame any additional conditions and/or norms, such as that of furnishing a bank guarantee, without obtaining the prior permission of the National Council for Vocational Training. 5.2 That subsequent to the communication referred above, vide letter dated 25.04.2018, issued by the Government of India, all State Directors were duly informed that upon reviewing the matter pertaining to the framing of additional conditions and/or norms by the National Council for Vocational Training on 27.03.2018, it was decided that since the day to day administration of the ITIs rested with the respective State Directorates, the erstwhile letter issued by the Government of India (Re-Directorate General of Training) stood rolled back. 5.3 As a result, liberty was granted to the State Directorate to impose any additional conditions and/or norms for administrative purposes, to compel the ITIs to deposit any bank guarantees or otherwise, as they deem fit. 5.3 As a result, liberty was granted to the State Directorate to impose any additional conditions and/or norms for administrative purposes, to compel the ITIs to deposit any bank guarantees or otherwise, as they deem fit. 5.4 Accordingly, the Director of Technical Education, State of Rajasthan vide letter dated 04.06.2018, issued information whereby all colleges which were running private ITIs were required to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.50,000/- for each unit from the Academic Session 2018 onward and the said bank guarantees were to be furnished on a non-judicial stamp paper for a period of 5 years in favour of Director Training, Directorate of Technical Education, Jodhpur. 6. Therefore, in light of the stipulations stated hereinabove, especially qua the issuance of letter dated 25.04.2018 by the Government of India, which were duly taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 02.12.2020, we deem it fit to hold that the State Government exercised discretion well within its powers as well as jurisdiction to require the furnishing of bank performance guarantees from the Academic Session 2018 onward. 7. Accordingly, in light of the above, the argument(s) raised by the appellants qua the lack of jurisdiction on part of the State Government to issue the impugned order imposing the requirement to furnish the performance bank guarantee behest of any rule or provision, is not tenable. 8. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. Therefore, no interference with the impugned order dated 02.12.2020 is warranted. 9. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.