The Supreme Court has set aside the Uttar Pradesh High Court's dismissal of writ petitions challenging the dilution of mandatory Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate requirements for recruitment to Instructor posts in Industrial Training Institutes. The Court held that the State could not dilute the central government's executive directions making CITS a mandatory qualification, and directed recruitment of eligible candidates despite procedural delays and lapse of time.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, 134 candidates including members of a registered society, challenged the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules) which diluted the mandatory requirement of a Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate to a preferential qualification. The appellants had applied for 2,498 Instructor posts advertised in 2014 and 559 posts advertised in 2015 but were excluded due to an arbitrary cut-off marks policy not envisaged under the 2014 Rules.
Key Facts
- The Central Government vide executive directions dated 24.07.1996 directed all State Governments to amend recruitment rules to make CITS certificate a mandatory essential qualification for Instructor posts in ITIs.
- The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training (Instructors) Services Rules, 1991 were amended on 08.08.2003 to incorporate the CITS requirement as essential.
- The 2014 Rules superseded prior rules and made CITS a preferential qualification under Rule 9(B), with candidates allowed to obtain it within three years of appointment.
- Advertisements for 2,498 posts in 2014 and 559 posts in 2015 were issued under the 2014 Rules.
- The Selection Committee fixed arbitrary cut-off marks for screening candidates, excluding many including the appellants, despite vacancies remaining unfilled.
- The 2014 Rules were later superseded by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Training Institute (Instructor and Foreman Instructor) Service Rules, 2021, which restored CITS as an essential qualification.
Procedural History
- 2014-2015: Advertisements issued for Instructor posts under 2014 Rules.
- 2014-2019: Multiple writ petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the 2014 Rules and advertisements (Writ-A No. 63110/2014, Writ-A 21295/2019, etc.).
- 04.01.2023: High Court dismissed all writ petitions by common judgment.
- 21.05.2026: Supreme Court granted leave in SLP (C) Nos. 4012-4014/2023 and connected matters.
- 13.11.2025: Supreme Court directed State to furnish particulars regarding selection process.
- 10.12.2025 to 21.02.2026: State filed status reports furnishing partial information; appellants objected to incompleteness.
- 24.07.2026: Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the 2014 Rules and advertisements, and directions for their appointment as Instructors in ITIs, with all service benefits except back wages, seniority, and promotion.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State of Uttar Pradesh could dilute the mandatory CITS certificate requirement prescribed by the Central Government's executive directions of 24.07.1996 by framing the 2014 Rules.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The 2014 Rules contravened the Central Government's executive directions making CITS a mandatory essential qualification.
- The arbitrary fixation of cut-off marks by the Selection Committee was not envisaged under the 2014 Rules and resulted in exclusion of eligible candidates.
- The State's action was arbitrary and vitiated the selection process.
For the Respondent
- The appellants participated in the selection process with full knowledge that CITS was only a preferential qualification under the 2014 Rules, hence estopped from challenging the rules.
- The State acted within its powers in prescribing cut-off marks for screening candidates.
- The lapse of time and aging of candidates justified denial of relief.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the executive directions issued by the Central Government on 24.07.1996, which mandated that CITS certificate be an essential qualification for Instructor posts in ITIs. The Court noted that the State had accepted and incorporated this requirement in the 1991 Rules through an amendment on 08.08.2003. The 2014 Rules, however, diluted this requirement by making CITS a preferential qualification, thereby contravening the Central Government's directions.
The Court observed that the Selection Committee had fixed arbitrary cut-off marks for screening candidates, which was not envisaged under Rule 16 of the 2014 Rules. Rule 16(3)(b)(i) permitted shortlisting only when applications were disproportionately high, and even then, only by preparing a merit list based on marks obtained under Rule 16(3)(a). The fixation of cut-off marks resulted in ouster of a substantial number of candidates, including the appellants, and left vacancies unfilled despite availability of eligible candidates.
"Once the rule-making authority has consciously provided only one mode of shortlisting, namely limiting the candidates to be called for interview to four times the number of vacancies where applications are received in large numbers, it was not open to the Selection Committee/SoUP to superimpose an additional eligibility threshold."
The Court held that the State's action in fixing arbitrary cut-off marks was arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment procedure prescribed by the 2014 Rules. The Court further held that the appellants could not be estopped from challenging the 2014 Rules merely because they participated in the selection process, as the illegality in the process was writ large.
The Court noted that despite the lapse of time, there were still 5,507 Instructors in position out of 7,768 sanctioned posts as of May 2026, indicating sufficient vacancies for accommodating the appellants. The Court held that denying relief to the appellants solely on the ground of aging would cause injustice, and moulded relief accordingly.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment dated 04.01.2023. The Court directed:
- Appellants to approach the appointing authority within two weeks with a copy of the judgment.
- Members of the registered society to prove valid membership on the date of presentation of the writ petition.
- Appellants and impleaded candidates to be considered for recruitment against vacant posts in relevant disciplines/trades.
- If eligible candidates exceed vacancies, supernumerary posts be created.
- Appointments to be offered within four months of approach, with prospective effect, subject to verification of qualifications and antecedents.
- A reasoned order to be passed if appointment is declined, communicated without delay.
- The respondents to hold interviews for non-interviewed candidates and determine inter-se merit as per rules.
- Appointed appellants to be entitled to all benefits except back wages, seniority, and promotion.
- Appellants to be eligible for pension and gratuity if qualified under prevalent rules.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Executive Directions Bind States Unless Overridden by Statute
The judgment reaffirms that executive directions issued by the Central Government under its regulatory powers bind State Governments unless overridden by a statutory rule. States cannot dilute mandatory qualifications prescribed by such directions without explicit statutory authority.
- Actionable takeaway: When challenging recruitment rules, examine whether they contravene central executive directions or statutory provisions. Cite this judgment to argue that arbitrary dilution of mandatory qualifications is impermissible.
Arbitrary Cut-off Marks Vitiate Selection Process
The Court held that fixation of arbitrary cut-off marks not envisaged under recruitment rules is arbitrary and vitiates the selection process. Such cut-off marks cannot be superimposed to exclude eligible candidates.
- Actionable takeaway: Challenge any arbitrary cut-off marks policy in recruitment processes. Argue that such policies are ultra vires the recruitment rules and liable to be struck down.
Relief Can Be Moulded Despite Delay and Lapse of Time
The Court moulded relief to accommodate the appellants despite the lapse of over a decade and their aging, holding that denial of relief would cause injustice. The Court directed prospective appointments and limited benefits.
- Actionable takeaway: Even in delayed cases, argue for moulded relief including prospective appointments and limited benefits. Highlight vacancies and eligibility to support claims for accommodation.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
The Court emphasized that the State must strictly follow the recruitment procedure prescribed by the rules. Any deviation, such as superimposing additional eligibility thresholds, is arbitrary and liable to be struck down.
- Actionable takeaway: Scrutinize recruitment procedures for deviations from prescribed rules. Challenge any procedural irregularities that result in exclusion of eligible candidates.
