The Supreme Court has held that the Uttar Pradesh Government acted arbitrarily by prescribing qualifying and cut-off marks during the recruitment process for Industrial Training Institute (ITI) Instructors despite such a criterion not being contemplated under the applicable recruitment rules.
Granting relief to hundreds of affected candidates, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta directed the State to reconsider their appointments against existing vacancies and, if necessary, create supernumerary posts to accommodate eligible candidates.
The dispute arose from recruitment notifications issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government in 2014 for 2,498 Instructor posts and in 2015 for another 559 posts in government ITIs. Candidates possessing Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificates challenged the recruitment process after the State diluted the status of the CITS qualification from an essential qualification to merely a preferential qualification under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014.
Buy Now: June 2026 Ultimate Legal & Taxation Combo
The petitioners argued that the State’s 2014 Rules were contrary to the Central Government’s 24 July 1996 executive directions, which had mandated possession of a CITS certificate as an essential qualification for appointment as Vocational Instructors in ITIs.
The Allahabad High Court had dismissed a batch of 43 writ petitions in January 2023, following which the aggrieved candidates approached the Supreme Court. The principal issue before the apex court was whether the 2014 Rules violated the Central Government’s executive directions by reducing the importance of the CITS qualification.
The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the candidates had participated in the recruitment process despite knowing that the CITS qualification was only preferential under the 2014 Rules. Therefore, they were estopped from challenging the recruitment process after failing to secure selection.
The Supreme Court accepted the general legal principle that candidates who knowingly participate in a selection process ordinarily cannot challenge it later. However, it clarified that this rule does not apply where the recruitment process itself suffers from patent illegality or arbitrariness.
The Bench observed that participation cannot validate an illegal selection procedure, particularly where candidates had no reason to anticipate that authorities would depart from the recruitment rules during the process.
After calling for detailed records from the State Government, the Court found that the Selection Committee had introduced qualifying and cut-off marks for shortlisting candidates although the 2014 Rules contained no such provision.
The recruitment rules only permitted shortlisting where applications were received in exceptionally large numbers and allowed interviews to be restricted to four times the number of vacancies. However, the Court noted that the State had instead fixed arbitrary qualifying marks, resulting in the exclusion of many otherwise eligible candidates.
The Court further observed that this exercise led to a paradoxical situation where hundreds of advertised vacancies remained unfilled even though eligible candidates were available.
According to the Bench, once the rule-making authority had prescribed a specific mechanism for shortlisting, the Selection Committee could not superimpose an additional eligibility threshold that effectively altered the recruitment process.
In one of the most significant observations of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee could not change the “rules of the game” after the recruitment process had commenced.
The Court observed that the fixation of arbitrary qualifying marks had vitiated the entire selection process and deprived many candidates of the opportunity to participate in interviews despite the availability of vacancies. Since this arbitrariness directly affected the fairness of the recruitment exercise, the Court considered it appropriate to grant relief notwithstanding the candidates’ participation in the selection process.
While considering the appropriate relief, the Court noted that more than a decade had passed since the recruitment advertisements were issued. Nevertheless, material placed before the Court revealed that thousands of Instructor posts remained vacant.
The Court recorded that out of 7,768 sanctioned Instructor posts in Uttar Pradesh ITIs, only about 5,507 posts were occupied, leaving over 2,200 vacancies available even in 2026.
The Bench observed that denying relief solely because the candidates had grown older would perpetuate the injustice caused by the State’s arbitrary recruitment process.
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court directed the eligible appellants and members of the registered society to approach the appointing authority within two weeks with copies of the judgment.
The Court ordered that eligible candidates shall be considered for appointment against presently vacant Instructor posts in their respective trades. If eligible candidates exceed the available vacancies, the State shall create supernumerary posts. Fresh interviews shall be conducted for candidates who were wrongly excluded from the earlier process. Appointments must be completed within four months, subject to verification of eligibility and antecedents. Successful candidates will receive prospective appointments and service benefits, excluding back wages, seniority and promotional benefits. Eligible appointees will also receive pensionary and gratuity benefits in accordance with applicable rules.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
