The Supreme Court has set aside the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, holding that the State cannot dilute the mandatory Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate requirement prescribed by the Central Government's executive directions of 24.07.1996. The Court found the State's fixation of arbitrary qualifying marks to be contrary to the recruitment procedure prescribed by the 2014 Rules and directed the State to consider the appellants for recruitment against current vacancies in relevant disciplines, subject to verification of their qualifications and antecedents.
Background & Facts
The Genesis of ITI Instructor Recruitment
The Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) were established in the 1950s to provide quality vocational education and training in India. The Directorate General of Employment & Training (DGE&T), under the Ministry of Labour, was responsible for setting standards for vocational training. On 24.07.1996, the DGE&T issued directions enhancing the qualifications for the post of Vocational Instructors, making a certificate under the regular Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) of one-year duration a mandatory essential qualification. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SoUP) accepted this direction and incorporated the change in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training (Instructors) Services Rules, 1991 through a second amendment notified on 08.08.2003.
The 2014 Rules and Dilution of CITS Requirement
In supersession of existing rules, the SoUP framed the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules), which diluted the CITS certificate requirement by making it a preferential qualification instead of an essential qualification. The appellants, who held CITS certificates, applied for the posts of Instructors pursuant to two advertisements issued in 2014 and 2015 but were not selected. They challenged the 2014 Rules and the advertisements before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed their writ petitions vide a common judgment and order dated 04.01.2023.
Key Facts
- The essential qualification for the post of Vocational Instructor (Theory) under the 1991 Rules was a minimum pass in the 10th Standard, a three-year Diploma in the appropriate branch of Engineering, and a CITS certificate.
- For the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical), the essential qualification was a minimum pass in the 10th Standard, a National Trade Certificate (NTC) or National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) in the relevant trade, and a CITS certificate.
- The 2014 Rules made the CITS certificate a preferential qualification, allowing non-CITS candidates to be considered for selection.
- The appellants applied for the posts advertised in 2014 (2,498 posts) and 2015 (559 posts) but were not selected, as the Selection Committee fixed arbitrary qualifying or cut-off marks that excluded them from the zone of consideration.
- The 2021 Rules have since superseded the 2014 Rules, making the National Craft Instructor Certificate an essential qualification again.
Procedural History
- 2014-2015: Advertisements issued for 2,498 and 559 posts of Instructors, respectively.
- 2014-2019: Writ petitions filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the 2014 Rules and the advertisements.
- 04.01.2023: High Court dismissed the writ petitions.
- 21.05.2026: Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the present cases.
- 13.11.2025: Supreme Court called for particulars from the SoUP regarding the selection process.
- 19.11.2025: SoUP filed a status report furnishing partial information.
- 03.12.2025: SoUP filed a supplementary report furnishing further particulars.
- 24.02.2026: Appellants objected to the incomplete and selective nature of the reports filed by the SoUP.
- 24.01.2026 and 21.02.2026: SoUP filed further status reports furnishing particulars relating to the appellants.
- 29.05.2026: SoUP filed written arguments.
- 24.07.2026: Supreme Court delivered the judgment.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought a direction to the SoUP to consider them for recruitment against the posts of Instructors, quashing the 2014 Rules, and setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. They also sought relief on the ground that they were subjected to arbitrary treatment due to the fixation of qualifying marks not envisaged by the 2014 Rules.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 were bad for contravening the executive directions issued by the Central Government on 24.07.1996, which required the CITS certificate to be a mandatory essential qualification for the post of Instructor in ITIs.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
The appellants argued that the 2014 Rules were arbitrary and illegal as they diluted the mandatory CITS certificate requirement prescribed by the Central Government's executive directions of 24.07.1996. They contended that the fixation of arbitrary qualifying or cut-off marks by the Selection Committee/SoUP was contrary to the recruitment procedure prescribed by the 2014 Rules and resulted in their exclusion from the selection process despite being eligible. They also argued that the State's action was arbitrary and vitiated the selection process, entitling them to relief despite their participation in the selection process.
For the Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh)
The SoUP argued that the appellants were estopped from challenging the 2014 Rules and the advertisements as they had applied for the posts with full awareness that the CITS certificate was only a preferential qualification. The State contended that the appellants had participated in the selection process without objection and could not now challenge the process. It also argued that the appellants had not demonstrated the existence of vacancies where they could be accommodated.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the executive directions issued by the Central Government on 24.07.1996, which required the CITS certificate to be a mandatory essential qualification for the post of Instructor in ITIs. The Court noted that the 2014 Rules diluted this requirement by making the CITS certificate a preferential qualification, contrary to the Central Government's directions.
The Court observed that the 2014 Rules envisaged a mechanism for shortlisting candidates only when the number of applications was disproportionately high, and even then, the Selection Committee was empowered to restrict the candidates called for interview to four times the number of vacancies by preparing a merit list based on marks obtained under Rule 16(3)(a). The Court held that the fixation of arbitrary qualifying or cut-off marks by the Selection Committee/SoUP was contrary to the recruitment procedure prescribed by the 2014 Rules and resulted in the exclusion of a substantial number of candidates, including the appellants, from the selection process.
"Failure of the Selection Committee/SoUP to follow the 2014 Rules to the tee, more particularly excluding the appellants by fixing an arbitrary qualifying or cut-off marks in the guise of screening eligible candidates though the vacancies advertised out-numbered candidates prima facie found eligible, cannot be validated merely on the ground that the appellants participated in the selection process."
The Court held that the arbitrary fixation of qualifying marks vitiated the selection process and amounted to arbitrariness in State action. It noted that the appellants could not have visualized that the Selection Committee/SoUP would change the rules mid-way to their detriment. The Court held that the rules of the game could not be changed mid-way by the Selection Committee/SoUP to the detriment of a number of candidates.
The Court also examined the availability of vacancies and noted that as per the statement of the Minister of Vocational Education in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 2023, there were 5,220 vacancies against 7,768 sanctioned posts of Instructors. The SoUP, in its written arguments, stated that 5,507 Instructors were in position out of 7,768 sanctioned posts as of 29.05.2026. The Court held that there were sufficient vacancies to accommodate the appellants.
The Court also considered the issue of delay and the age of the appellants, noting that more than a decade had passed since the impugned advertisements were issued. However, the Court held that denying relief to the appellants only because they had aged would cause injustice to them. The Court moulded the relief to balance the interests of the appellants and the State.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.01.2023. The Court held that the fixation of arbitrary qualifying or cut-off marks by the Selection Committee/SoUP was arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment procedure prescribed by the 2014 Rules. The Court directed the SoUP to consider the appellants for recruitment against the posts which are now vacant in the relevant discipline/trade, subject to verification of their qualifications and antecedents. The appointments are to be offered within four months of the appellants approaching the appointing authority, with prospective effect. The Court also directed the SoUP to hold interviews for the appellants and determine their inter-se merit as per the rules. The appellants will be entitled to all benefits (other than back wages, seniority, and promotion) while in service and will also be eligible for pension and gratuity if they qualify therefor.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Arbitrary State Action Cannot Be Validated by Participation
- Participation in a selection process does not estop a candidate from challenging arbitrariness or illegality in the process.
- Candidates cannot be expected to anticipate that the rules of the game will be changed mid-way to their detriment.
- The Court held that the rules of the game could not be changed mid-way by the Selection Committee/SoUP to the detriment of a number of candidates.
Recruitment Rules Must Be Followed to the Tee
- Recruitment rules are sacrosanct and must be followed strictly. The Court held that the fixation of arbitrary qualifying or cut-off marks was contrary to the recruitment procedure prescribed by the 2014 Rules.
- Selection committees cannot superimpose additional eligibility thresholds not envisaged by the rules.
- The Court emphasized that shortlisting can only be done as per the mechanism prescribed in the rules, i.e., limiting candidates to four times the number of vacancies when applications are large in number.
Relief Can Be Molded to Balance Interests
- Delay and age of candidates are relevant factors in moulding relief. The Court held that denying relief to the appellants only because they had aged would cause injustice to them.
- Relief can be tailored to the circumstances, such as offering appointments with prospective effect or creating supernumerary posts.
- The Court directed the SoUP to consider the appellants for recruitment against current vacancies, subject to verification of their qualifications and antecedents.
