Service Law | Government ITI Diploma Requirement For Police Absorption Is Valid : Central Administrative Tribunal

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, has clarified that government employers may validly restrict eligibility for police force absorption to candidates possessing diplomas from Government Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs). The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative discretion in prescribing eligibility criteria for disciplined forces cannot be challenged as arbitrary unless manifestly unreasonable or violative of constitutional guarantees.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, a Special Police Officer (SPO) engaged since 2013, sought absorption as a Follower/Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Police under a policy permitting absorption of SPOs with ITI qualifications. His candidature was rejected on the ground that his Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA) diploma was obtained from a Government-recognized private ITI rather than a Government ITI, as mandated by a 2018 policy decision of the Police Establishment Board.

Procedural History

The dispute progressed through multiple legal forums:

• 2019: Filed WP(C) No. 3091/2019 before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, later withdrawn with liberty to file afresh
• 2019: Filed WP(C) No. 4528/2019, transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal as TA 3737/2020
• 2025: Tribunal directed consideration of the applicant’s representation, which was subsequently rejected by the respondents

Relief Sought

The applicant sought:

• Absorption as a Follower/Constable under the ITI category
• Quashing of Clause 4 of the 2018 Police Headquarters guidelines, which restricted eligibility to Government ITI diploma holders
• A declaration that the rejection of his candidature violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The Legal Issue

The Tribunal was called upon to determine:

1. Whether the restriction of eligibility to Government ITI diploma holders for police absorption was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature without a personal hearing violated principles of natural justice.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• The 2009 Government Order permitting absorption of SPOs with ITI qualifications did not distinguish between Government and private ITIs, and the 2018 policy amendment was arbitrary.
• The applicant’s diploma was issued by the J&K State Board of Technical Education after examinations conducted by a Government ITI, making it equivalent to a Government ITI qualification.
• Past absorptions of candidates with private ITI diplomas created a legitimate expectation of equal treatment.
• The rejection order was mechanical and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice.

For the Respondents

• Engagement as an SPO is contractual and temporary, conferring no vested right to absorption.
• The Police Establishment Board had consciously resolved in 2016 and 2017 to restrict eligibility to Government ITI diploma holders for reasons of uniformity and quality control.
• The 2018 guidelines merely operationalized this decision, which was neither ultra vires nor unreasonable.
• No fundamental or statutory right of the applicant was violated, and the rejection was in strict compliance with policy.

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal’s reasoning rested on three key pillars: administrative discretion, constitutional limits to equality, and procedural fairness.

Administrative Discretion in Eligibility Criteria

The Tribunal held that employers possess broad discretion to prescribe eligibility criteria for recruitment, particularly in disciplined forces like the police. It observed:

"Restricting eligibility to Government ITIs is founded on considerations of uniformity, quality control, and institutional accountability, which cannot be termed as unreasonable or discriminatory."

The judgment distinguished between recognition of an institute for training purposes and equivalence for employment eligibility. While the applicant’s private ITI was Government-recognized, the Police Establishment Board was entitled to prescribe stricter standards for absorption into the police force.

Constitutional Validity Under Articles 14 and 16

The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim that the 2018 policy violated Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment). It held:

1. Equality does not mandate negative parity: The State is not obligated to perpetuate past mistakes or extend benefits to similarly situated individuals if the policy has been lawfully amended.
2. Reasonable classification is permissible: The distinction between Government and private ITIs was based on legitimate administrative concerns, including standardization of training and institutional accountability.
3. No vested right to absorption: The applicant’s engagement as an SPO was temporary and contractual, and absorption was a policy-based exception, not an entitlement.

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa to emphasize that classification based on educational qualifications is permissible if it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s contention that the rejection order violated principles of natural justice. It held:

"Where the disqualification is objective and policy-based, no useful purpose would be served by affording a personal hearing, particularly when the policy itself leaves no discretion with the authority."

The rejection was based on an admitted fact - the source of the applicant’s diploma - and not on any disputed factual determination requiring a hearing.

The Verdict

The Tribunal dismissed the Transfer Application, holding:

1. The 2018 policy restricting eligibility to Government ITI diploma holders was valid and not arbitrary.
2. The applicant’s rejection was in strict compliance with the policy and did not violate Articles 14 or 16.
3. No vested right to absorption existed, and the rejection order did not require a personal hearing.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Employers Can Prescribe Stricter Eligibility Criteria

The judgment reaffirms that government employers may validly prescribe eligibility criteria that go beyond minimum statutory requirements. Practitioners should note:

• Disciplined forces (police, armed forces) may impose stricter standards for recruitment and absorption.
• Classification based on institutional source of qualifications is permissible if it serves a legitimate administrative purpose.
• Past practices do not create a binding precedent if the policy has been lawfully amended.

No Automatic Right to Absorption for Temporary Employees

The judgment clarifies that temporary or contractual employees have no vested right to absorption, even if they possess the requisite qualifications. Key takeaways:

• Absorption is a policy-based exception, not a matter of right.
• Engagement as an SPO or similar temporary role does not confer an indefeasible claim to regularization.
• Judicial review of policy decisions is limited to cases of manifest arbitrariness or statutory violation.

Natural Justice Does Not Require Hearing for Policy-Based Rejections

The Tribunal’s ruling underscores that principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may be relaxed where:

• The rejection is based on objective, policy-based criteria.
• The disqualification is admitted and not subject to factual dispute.
• The policy leaves no discretion to the authority.

Practitioners should argue for personal hearings only where the rejection involves disputed facts or subjective assessments.