Supreme Court of India
RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR. on 6 December 2019
[2019] 14 S.C.R. 755
RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9140 of 2019)
DECEMBER 06, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors)Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2003: r.8 – Advertisementissued by the Directorate of Training and Employment invitingapplications for the various posts of Instructors in the GovernmentIndustrial Training Institute of the State – Appellant applied forthe post of Instructor in the subject of Fitter – Educationaleligibility condition prescribed for the said post was a certificatein concerned trade from National Council of Vocational Training(NCVT) apart from two years’ experience – Appellant applied forsuch post on the basis of his three educational qualifications:National Trade Certificate of basic training of one year inMechanical Group imparted by Model Industrial Training Institute(MITI), Haldwani; National Trade Certificate of further trainingof six months in Fitter General imparted by MITI, Haldwani; andNational Trade Certificate of further training of six months inMetrology and Engineering Inspection imparted by MITI, Haldwani– He was found not eligible for the reason that he did not possesstwo years course from NCVT – High Court dismissed the writpetition filed by the appellant for the reason that three differentcourses undertaken by the appellant could not be treated asequivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Rules –Appellant relied upon Circular issued on 16[th] December, 1983giving equivalency between various disciplines under RestructuredPattern and Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme– The said Circular clarified that a candidate having basic courseof Mechanical Trade of one year, Fitting General Module of sixmonths and Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module of sixmonths was treated to be equivalent to Fitter of two years training– Subsequently, another Circular was issued on 9[th] April, 1992 thatcertificate in Fitter Trade of two years granted by MITI, Haldwaniwhich included one year basic training and six months module be
755
A
B
C
DEF
GH
756SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Atreated equivalent to the National Trade Certificate – Held: Theeligibility condition was that a candidate must have obtained acertificate in respective trade from NCVT – It is not necessary thata qualification prescribed in the Rules was to be possessed in onecertificate – The State itself has treated qualification of basiccourse in Mechanical Trade Fitter, General Module and MetrologyBand Engineering Inspection Module equivalent to conventionalpattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme – Thus, the stand of the Statethat the appellant was not possessing educational qualificationcannot be sustained – Service law.
Allowing the appeal, the CourtC
HELD: The eligibility condition is that a candidate musthave obtained a certificate in respective trade from NCVT. Itis not necessary that a qualification prescribed in the Rules hasto be possessed in one certificate. Once the educationalqualification has been treated to be equivalent by the StateDGovernment in the Circulars issued earlier, the stand of the Statethat appellant is not qualified has no legs to stand. The State itselfhas treated qualification of basic course in Mechanical TradeFitter, General Module and Metrology and EngineeringInspection Module equivalent to conventional pattern ofECraftsmen Training Scheme. Thus, the stand of the State thatthe appellant was not possessing educational qualification cannotbe sustained. The candidature of the appellant was not validlyrejected. Since candidature of the appellant was rejected on theground that he was not possessing educational qualification,therefore, the State Government is directed to take proper stepsFfor appointment of the appellant in accordance with law. [Paras9, 10 and 11] [761-D-H; 762-A-C]CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9140of 2019.
GFrom the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2016 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 2008 of 2011
Vivek Jain, Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Advs. for the Appellant.Samat Vijay Singh, Dhruv Arora, Arun Tewatia, Advs. for theRespondents.H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 14[th]December, 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabadwhereby the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order dated26[th] April, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge was dismissed.
B
2. An advertisement was issued on 17[th] March, 2008 by theDirectorate of Training and Employment, Lucknow, U.P. invitingapplications for the various posts of Instructors in the GovernmentIndustrial Training Institute of the State. The appellant applied for thepost of Instructor in the subject of Fitter. The educational eligibilitycondition prescribed for the said post was a certificate in concernedtrade from National Council of Vocational Training[1] apart from twoyears’ experience in any industry or training/educational institute, eitherbefore or after getting instructor training. The appellant applied for suchpost on the basis of the following educational qualifications:
C
D
(a) National Trade Certificate of basic training of one yearfrom September, 1990 to August, 1991 in Mechanical Groupimparted by Model Industrial Training Institute[2], Haldwani; (b) National Trade Certificate of further training of six monthsfrom September, 1991 to February, 1992 in Fitter GeneralEimparted by MITI, Haldwani; and
(c) National Trade Certificate of further training of six monthsfrom March, 1992 to August, 1992 in Metrology andEngineering Inspection imparted by MITI, Haldwani.
F
3. The appellant was found not eligible for the reason that hedoes not possess two years course from NCVT. The High Courtdismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for the reason that threedifferent courses undertaken by the appellant cannot be treated asequivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Rules.
G
4. The appellant relies upon Circular issued by Ministry of Labour& Rehabilitation, Government of India on 16[th] December, 1983 givingequivalency between various disciplines under Restructured Pattern andConventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme. The said Circular 1 for short, NCVT
H
2 for short, MITI
758SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Aclarifies that a candidate having basic course of Mechanical Trade ofone year, Fitting General Module of six months and Metrology andEngineering Inspection Module of six months was treated to beequivalent to Fitter of two years training. Subsequently, the StateGovernment vide communication dated 18[th] August, 1988 issueddirections for considering the eligibility of training obtained from MITI,BHaldwani for services and posts under State Government. The sameis reproduced hereunder:
“From
The DirectorCTraining and EmploymentUttar Pradesh, Lucknow To The SecretaryGovernment of Uttar PradeshDLabour DepartmentSecretariat, Lucknow.
Letter No. /E-2/0102/Policy(General)/84-85
Dated: August 18, 1988
Sub : Regarding issuance of directions for considering the traineesEobtained training from Model Industrial Training Institute,Haldwani.
Sir
Shri Q.L. Juneja, Principal/Deputy Director, Model IndustrialFTraining Institute, Haldwani (Nainital) has requested that ordersfor considering the trainees who have obtained training from thisinstitute for the services/appointments under State Government.In this reference, he informed that directions for issuance ofnecessary orders in this regard have already been given to allthe Ministries of Government of India and different departmentsGvide Letter No. D.G.E.T.-5/7/83-T.C. dated 31[st] October, 1983and that request has been made for issuance of above orders atthe earliest to all the State Governments and Union Territoriesof the Country.
2. In this reference, it is noteworthy that on recommendation ofHNational Council of Vocational Training (NCVT), the Government RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
of India has established the above Institute in year 1981 underre-structured training pattern of the Craftsmen training scheme,for which, the Government has already been provided 11 acresof land.
3. Following two certificates are being issued by the ModelIndustrial Training Institute, Haldwani (Nainital):
(1) National Training Certificate Basic Training.
(2) Certificate of Proficiency awarding to the successfultrainees under the restructured training pattern ofCraftsmen Training Scheme.
4. It is well-considered opinion of this directorate, that the aboveboth certificates granted by above institute kindly be declaredeligible for services and posts under State Government likeGovernment of India, whereby, the candidates trained by aboveinstitute may be retired in the services under State Government.”
5. Subsequently, another Circular was issued by the Training andEmployment Directorate on 9[th] April, 1992 that certificate in FitterTrade of two years granted by MITI, Haldwani which includes one yearbasic training and six months module be treated equivalent to theNational Trade Certificate. The Circular reads as under:
“From
The DirectorTraining and Employment DirectorateUttar Pradesh, Lucknow To
1. All Regional/District/City Employment Officer All Regional/District/City Employment Office, U.P.
2. All Deputy-Head of University, Employment, Informationand Consultation Center, U.P.
Letter No. 1083/E-2/0102/Policy Regn./90
Lucknow, dated 09 April, 92.
Sub : For getting recognized certificate in two years fitter tradegranted by MITI, Haldwani equivalent to N.T.C.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ASir
It is informed vide letter No. D.G.E.T.-7(1)/91-C.D. dated18.02.1992 of Training and Employment Directorate General,New Delhi that the certificate in fitter trade of two years grantedby MITI, Haldwani wherein, one year basic training and sixBmonths modules are included, shall be treated equivalent to theNational Trade Certificate. Therefore, you are hereby directedthat those candidates, who have received above training and mayappear for registration in your office, then, please be registeredthem in profession equivalent to N.T.C. for Employment/TraineeCTraining.”
6. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that thequalification obtained by the candidate in three different modules istreated to be equivalent to the Fitter Trade of two years duration asper the Circulars issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 18[th]DAugust, 1988 and 9[th] April, 1992, therefore, the appellant is eligiblecandidate for appointment to the post of Fitter.
7. Learned counsel for the State has filed an additional affidavitto explain the said three Circulars relied upon by the appellant. It ismentioned that the appellant is not possessed of the qualification asEmentioned in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes(Instructors) Service Rules, 1991[3], as amended in the year 2003 calledthe Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service(Second Amendment) Rules, 2003[4]. It is pointed out that Circulars dated16[th] December, 1983, 18[th] August, 1988 and 9[th] April, 1992, relied uponFby the appellant, will have no effect unless necessary amendment isbeing made in the Rules for the appointment of Instructors in the State.
8. Rule 8 of the amended Rules has prescribed the followingacademic qualifications:
“8. Academic Qualification – (1) A candidate for recruitment toGthe post of instructor other than the post of language instructor(Hindi/English) in the Service must possess the followingqualifications:
H
3 for short, ‘the Rules’
4 for short, ‘the amended Rules’
(1) Educational -
(i) Must have passed Intermediate examination of theBoard of High School and Intermediate Education, UttarPradesh or an Examination recognised by theGovernment as equivalent, thereto.
(ii) Must have obtained a certificate in the respective tradefrom the National Council for Training in VocationalTrades.
OR
Must have obtained National Apprenticeship Certificate in therespective trade.
********”
9. We find that the stand of the State that appellant is notpossessed of educational qualifications is not tenable. The eligibilitycondition is that a candidate must have obtained a certificate inrespective trade from NCVT. It is not necessary that a qualificationprescribed in the Rules has to be possessed in one certificate. TheCircular of the Government of India dated 16[th] December, 1983prescribes the following conditions:
Restructured Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme Sl. Identified trades NCO Duration Total Trade Duration No. group & Module(s) No. of Trg. Duration of Trg. for equivalency of trg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 i. Basic Course in One year 2 Yrs. Fitter 2 Yrs. Mechanical trades group. ii. Fitting General 842.10 6 months Module. iii. Metrology & 840.10 6 months Engineering Inspection Module.
10. It is on the basis of such Circular, the Director of Trainingand Employment of the State has issued Circulars on 18[th] August, 1988and on 9[th] April, 1992 that such qualification will be deemed to beequivalent to the National Trade Certificate. Once the educational A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aqualification has been treated to be equivalent by the State Governmentin the Circulars issued earlier, the stand of the State that appellant isnot qualified has no legs to stand. The State itself has treatedqualification of basic course in Mechanical Trade Fitter, General Moduleand Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module equivalent toconventional pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme. Thus, we find thatBthe stand of the State that the appellant was not possessing educationalqualification cannot be sustained. The candidature of the appellant wasnot validly rejected.
11. Since we have found that candidature of the appellant wasrejected on the ground that he was not possessing educationalCqualification, therefore, the State Government is directed to take propersteps for appointment of the appellant in accordance with law withintwo months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. In viewof the above, the appeal is allowed.
D
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.
E
F
G
H