Arvind Kumar vs State Of U.P.
- Court
- Supreme Court
NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 741
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8257-8259 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 4012-4014 OF 2023]
ARVIND KUMAR & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS . … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8261 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 13648 OF 2023]
KAMLESH KUMAR MANJHI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS . … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8260 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 9685 OF 2023]
BEROJGAR AUDYOGIK KALYAN SAMITI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS . … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8262 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 19877 OF 2026]
VINOD KUMAR … APPELLANT
VERSUS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2026.07.24
17:39:49 IST
Reason:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS . … RESPONDENTS
1
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8263 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 19898 OF 2026]
BRAJESH KUMAR … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS . … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. To enhance the skills of available workforce in our country (the ‘Skill
1
Capital’ of the world), the Industrial Training Institutes were established
in the 1950s to ensure quality vocational education and training. The
present case concerns recruitment of I NSTRUCTORS in these prestigious
2
ITIs by the State of Uttar Pradesh .
2. At the relevant time, the Directorate General of Employment & Training
3
under the Ministry of Labour , was responsible for setting standards for
vocational training. The Government of India, through the aforesaid
th 4
department, issued directions on 24 July, 1996 enhancing the existing
qualifications for the post of Vocational Instructors and directing the
State Governments/Union Territories to amend their existing
recruitment rules accordingly. In terms thereof, one of the essential
1
ITIs
2
SoUP
3
since been reorganized and renamed as the Directorate General of Training (DGT) under
the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship
4
No. DGE&T-19 (20) /95-CD
2
5
qualifications for a candidate seeking appointment as an I NSTRUCTOR in
the ITIs was, a ‘certificate under regular Craft Instructor Training
6
Scheme of one year duration.’ This being a mandatory condition, the
SoUP accepted this direction and incorporated changes in the Uttar
7
Pradesh Industrial Training (Instructors) Services Rules, 1991 by way
nd th
of 2 amendment notified on 8 August, 2003.
8
3. Appellants (128 appellants in the main appeals , sole appellant in the
first, third and fourth connected appeals and 134 candidates/members
of a Regd. Society which is representing them) claim to be the holders
of certificates issued under CITS.
4. Their grievance, in brief, is this. In supersession of all existing rules and
orders on the subject, the SoUP diluted the requirement of CITS
certificate by making it a “preferential qualification” instead of “essential
qualification” by framing the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes
9
(Instructors) Service Rules 2014 . However, notwithstanding awareness
in respect of the changes made but desirous of appointment on the posts
NSTRUCTORS
of I , the appellants had applied pursuant to two
5
Complete Qualifications: The essential qualification prescribed for the post of
Vocational Instructor (Theory) was a minimum pass in the 10th Standard, along with a
three-year Diploma in the appropriate branch of Engineering and a certificate under the
Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS), which is a one-year course.
For the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical), the essential qualification was a minimum
pass in the 10th Standard, together with a National Trade Certificate (NTC) or National
Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) in the relevant trade and a certificate under the Craft
Instructor Training Scheme (CITS), which is a one-year course .
6
CITS
7
1991 Rules
8
Consisting of 124 petitioners in SLP 4012/2023, 3 petitioners in SLP 4013/2023, and 1
th
petitioner in SLP 4014/2023. Vide order dated 12 December, 2023 in I.A. No.
73237/2023, 122 applicants were permitted to be impleaded in SLP 4012/2023.
9
2014 Rules
3
10 11
advertisements issued in the year 2014 and 2015 but did not qualify.
They felt prejudiced due to the dilution of the CITS certificate
requirement, as non-CITS candidates were appointed. This is when this
12 13 14
litigation commenced. Rules 9(B) , 16(3)(a)(iii) and 17(3) of the
2014 Rules came be to challenged, as also the advertisements, at the
instance of the appellants before the High Court of Judicature at
15 16
Allahabad by way of various writ petitions . Succinctly put, the ground
10
Advertisement No. 2/2014 for 2498 post of I NSTRUCTORS
11
Advertisement No. 20(7)/2025 for 559 posts of I NSTRUCTORS
12
9. (A) A candidate for recruitment to the post of Instructor in the service must possess
the following qualifications:
(1) Must have passed the High School Examination of the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or an Examination recognised by the
Government as equivalent thereto;
(2) Must possess the technical qualifications for different trades/subjects as
prescribed in column 4 of the Appendix.
(B) Should possess the preferential qualification to provide
training/teaching in relevant trades/subjects as prescribed for different
trades/subjects in column 5 of the Appendix.
Provided that the candidates who do not possess the preferential
qualification as prescribed for different trades/subjects in column 5 of the Appendix,
shall also be considered for selection and if selected, they shall be required to obtain
the said qualification in the prescribed period as per rule 17(3).
13
16 (3) In making selection for direct recruitment, the merit list of the eligible candidates
shall be prepared in the following manner: -
(a) For academic qualifications prescribed for the post, the marks shall be awarded
to each candidate in the following manner:
(i) Fifty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the High School Examination
shall be given to each candidate.
(ii) Twenty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the National Trade
Certificate Test /National Apprenticeship Certificate Test shall be given to each
candidate, Or Twenty percent of the percentage of marks, secured in Diploma or
Degree Examination shall be given to each candidate.
( iii) Fifteen percent of the percentage of the marks secured in CITS/POT
test shall be given to each candidate.
14
(3) The appointed persons will have to complete the CITS/POT and CCC Courses referred
to in column 5 of the Appendix and obtain the requisite Certificates at their own expenses
within three years from the date of joining and leave shall be granted to them for the said
period. If a person is unable to complete the same due to reasons beyond his control, he
shall be allowed one more year to complete the said courses. If a person is unable to
obtain CITS/POT and CCC certificates within the prescribed period as mentioned in above,
he shall not be allowed his first increment.
15
High Court
16
Advertisement of 2014 challenged in Writ-A No. 63110/2014 and others; Advertisement
of 2015 challenged in Writ-A 21295/2019 and others.
4
urged was that the SoUP erroneously made CITS certificate a desirable
qualification, in supersession of the executive directions issued by the
th
Central Government on 24 July, 1996.
5. The High Court heard a total of 43 petitions together, which were
th
dismissed vide the common impugned judgment and order dated 4
17
January, 2023 . Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have challenged the
18
impugned judgment which has given rise to these appeals .
6. The primary issue that these appeals raise is: whether the 2014 Rules
th
are bad for contravention of the executive directions dated 24 July,
1996 vide which the Central Government required CITS certificate to be
a mandatory essential qualification?
7. It is to be noted that the 2014 Rules have now been superseded by the
Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Training Institute (Instructor and Foreman
19
Instructor) Service Rules 2021 , wherein National Craft Instructor
Certificate has been made an essential qualification.
8. Before we venture to explore the answer to the issue enumerated above,
a preliminary objection raised by the SoUP calls for our attention.
9. At the outset, the SoUP argued that the appellants applied under the
advertisements with full awareness that acquisition of CITS certificate
was only a desirable qualification; hence, they were estopped from
challenging the same.
17
impugned judgment
18 st
Leave granted on 21 May, 2026
19
2021 Rules
5
10. The objection sounds to be fair and tenable. If the 2014 Rules were bad,
and consequently the advertisements following it were also bad, the
appellants should have challenged the same instead of applying for
appointment on the posts of I NSTRUCTORS knowing fully well that non-
CITS certificate holders were also being considered eligible. We do not
propose to allow the appellants to raise their voice against the 2014
Rules and/or the advertisements since, admittedly, no question was
raised by any one of them before participation in the written
examination. The objection being well founded, is upheld.
11. However, though a candidate for a post cannot ordinarily challenge the
process of selection where he has participated without objection, law is
well-settled that he can do so in a situation where arbitrariness/illegality
in the selection process is writ large. After all, the candidate while
agreeing to participate in the selection process can neither expect an
illegality in the process to be pressed into service to rule out his
candidature nor can he be said to have accepted the illegality in it. If
indeed illegality in the process is demonstrated to have vitiated the
process, notwithstanding his participation, the candidate could be
granted relief as the situation would warrant and permit.
12. To satisfy our conscience and to rule out the possibility of illegality
having been committed against the appellants, we had vide our order
th
dated 13 November, 2025 called for various particulars from the SoUP,
viz.:
(a) What are the dates of presentation of each of the writ petitions, out
of which these special leave petitions arise?
6
(b) How many candidates were called for interview as against 2498
vacancies?
(c) Whether the petitioners (except the petitioner Berojgar Audyogik
Kalyan) were issued letters to appear for interview?
(d) Whether any cut-off marks was fixed for the purpose of calling
candidates at the interview as well as for offering appointments?
(e) How many vacancies were sought to be filled up through the process
initiated in the years 2015 & 2016?
(f) Whether the petitioners in Item 10.1 (Kamlesh Kumar Manjhi case)
were called upon to attend interview?
(g) What were the cut off marks for the processes initiated in the year
2015 & 2016?
(h) How many vacancies remained unfilled pursuant to the process
initiated in the years 2014, 2015 & 2016?
th
13. The State filed a status report dated 19 November, 2025 furnishing
part information. It sought further time to provide full information to
th
answer query (c) which was granted on 20 November, 2025. Particulars
rd
relating to that query were thereafter furnished by a report dated 3
December, 2025.
th
14. On 10 December, 2025, the appellants objected that the report
contained particulars of only a few appellants and omitted details of
selected candidates who did not possess the CITS certificates. Learned
senior counsel for the SoUP assured the Court that complete particulars
would be furnished. The SoUP subsequently filed further status reports
th st
dated 24 January and 21 February, 2026, furnishing particulars
relating to the appellants. It is evident on reading the said reports that
the appellants stood excluded from the zone of consideration because
they failed to secure the qualifying or cut-off marks for being called to
attend the interview.
th
15. On 24 February, 2026, the appellants again objected that the report
th
dated 24 January, 2026 was incomplete, selective and misleading,
7
particularly regarding the experience, qualifications and interview status
of several appellants, and placed what they claimed to be the correct
particulars on record.
16. The information furnished by the SoUP indicates that the selection
process was conducted in the manner as noted below:
a. First, the marks obtained by the candidates in the High School
examination were proportionately reduced to a maximum of 50
marks. Second, the marks obtained in the National Trade
Certificate Test/National Apprenticeship Certificate Test were
reduced to a maximum of 20 marks. Third, the marks obtained in
the Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) examination were
reduced to a maximum of 15 marks.
b. On the basis of the aggregate score under these three
components, carrying a total of 85 marks, a merit list was
prepared for calling candidates for interview. The marks awarded
in the interview were reduced to a maximum of 15 marks.
Thereafter, the marks obtained in the merit assessment, out of 85
marks, and the interview marks, out of 15 marks, were added to
arrive at the final score out of 100 marks.
17. Rule 16 of the 2014 Rules reads as follows:
16. (1) Direct recruitment shall be made by a Selection Committee
comprising:-
(i) *
(ii) *
(iii) *
(iv) *
NOTE - *
8
2) Applications for being considered for selection shall be invited by the
appointing authority in the form published in the advertisement issued
under rule 15.
(3) In making selection for direct recruitment, the merit list of the eligible
candidates shall be prepared in the following manner: -
(a) For academic qualifications prescribed for the post, the marks-
shall be awarded to each candidate in the following manner:
(i) Fifty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the High
School Examination shall be given to each candidate.
(ii) Twenty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the
National Trade Certificate Test /National Apprenticeship Certificate
Test shall be given to each candidate,
Or
Twenty percent of the percentage of marks secured in Diploma or
Degree Examination shall be given to each candidate.
(iii) Fifteen percent of the percentage of the marks secured CITS/POT
test shall be given to each candidate.
(b) (i) After the results of the evaluations under clause (a) have been
received and tabulated the Selection Committee shall hold an
interview. If the applications received are large in numbers, then in
such situation the number of candidates to be called for interview
shall be four times the number of vacancies. For this purpose the
merit list of candidates shall be prepared separately on the basis of
aggregate of marks obtained by them under clause (3).
(ii) The interview shall carry one hundred marks. Fifteen percent of
the marks obtained at the interview shall be given to each candidate.
(4) The marks obtained by each candidate under clause (a) of sub-rule (3)
shall be added to the marks obtained by him under clause (b) of sub-rule
(3). The final select list shall be prepared on the basis of aggregate of marks
so arrived. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate,
the candidate obtaining higher marks under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) shall
be placed higher in the select list. In case two or more candidates obtain
equal marks under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) also, the candidate senior in
age shall be placed higher in the select list.
(5) The select list referred to in sub-rule (4) shall be forwarded to the
appointing authority.
(emphasis ours)
18. Does Rule 16(3)(b)(i) of the 2014 Rules permit shortlisting? If so, when
and to what extent? In our reading Rule 16(3)(b)(i) contemplates
shortlisting of candidates only in a situation where applications are
received in large numbers; and even, in such an eventuality, the
Selection Committee is empowered to restrict the candidates called for
interview to four times the number of vacancies by preparing a merit list
on the basis of marks obtained under Rule 16(3)(a). in other words,
9
while the rule envisages a mechanism for reducing the pool of
candidates only when their number is disproportionately high, no room
is provided for excluding candidates from the zone based solely on the
marks secured under sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause 3(a) (supra)
and without they being called for interview. In the present case, the
situation is exactly the converse. As per the information provided by the
SoUP, despite 2,498 vacancies having been advertised in 2014, offer
letters could be issued to 2,200 odd candidates. Similar is the case in
2015. The number of offer letters issued is less than the number of
vacancies advertised. Therefore, instead of an excess of eligible
candidates, a substantial number of advertised vacancies have remained
unfilled. This consequence is attributable solely to the prescription of
qualifying or cut-off marks by the Selection Committee/SoUP, a criterion
which finds no mention in the 2014 Rules. 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 fixation of qualifying or cut-off marks
resulted in ouster of a substantial number of candidates including the
appellants and, thereby, vacancies remained unfilled despite the
availability of candidates otherwise eligible under the Rules. Such
fixation has to be characterised as arbitrary and contrary to the
10
recruitment procedure prescribed by the 2014 Rules as well as the
overall object behind them.
19. This aspect has weighed with us. 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. They could not have visualized, prior to declaration/
publication of results, that the Selection Committee/SoUP would not
follow the rules for selection. The rules of the game, mid-way, could not
have been changed by the Selection Committee/SoUP to the detriment
of a number of candidates. Since there has been arbitrariness in State
action, which has vitiated the process of selection including non-
selection of the appellants, this is sufficient for us to consider the
question of grant relief to the appellants, without going into the validity
of the 2014 Rules.
20. Now, relief cannot mechanically follow based on the above finding
without there being vacancies. Undoubtedly, there were vacancies when
the results were declared/published. However, much water having flown
under the bridge since then, we had called upon the SoUP to apprise us.
The SoUP initially disputed the existence of vacancies where the
appellants could be accommodated. We, therefore, called upon the
appellants to demonstrate that vacant posts were available for
11
accommodating such of the appellants who are eligible. In response, the
appellants placed on record relevant proceedings of the Uttar Pradesh
Legislative Assembly, particularly the “List of Questions for the
Department of Vocational Education and Skill Development in the Third
Session, 2023, of the 18th House.” A question was posed to the Minister
of Vocational Education regarding the total number of sanctioned posts
of I NSTRUCTORS in the Government run ITIs. In response, the Minister
stated that as against 7,768 sanctioned posts, 5,220 posts were vacant.
Evidently, even in 2023, a substantial number of vacancies were
available. We called for an affidavit from the SoUP after noticing the
statement of the minister concerned. Although no affidavit was filed, as
th
per the written arguments lastly filed by the SoUP dated 29 May, 2026,
presently 5,507 I NSTRUCTORS are in position out of 7,768 sanctioned
posts.
21. It is true that more than a decade has passed since the impugned
advertisements were issued and the process of recruitment was set in
motion. Appellants have grown in age, which normally diminishes
efficiency. Should the appellants, in such circumstance, be granted any
relief?
22. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue. Appellants having
proved that they were subjected to arbitrary treatment and there being
sufficient number of vacancies where they can be accommodated even
now, we are of the firm opinion that denying relief to them only because
12
they have aged would cause injustice to them. However, relief needs to
be moulded.
23. Bearing all these in mind, we pass the following directions:
a. We grant liberty to the members of the Regd. Society, the other
appellants and the impleaded candidates to approach the
appointing authority with a copy of this judgment within two
weeks.
b. Members of the Regd. Society seeking appointment must place
documents before the appointing authority to prove that their
membership was valid on the date of presentation of the writ
petition by such society.
c. Appellants (including the members of the Regd. Society) and the
impleaded candidates shall be considered for recruitment against
the posts which are now vacant in the relevant discipline/trade. If,
per chance, the number of eligible appellants exceed the number
of available vacancies, supernumerary posts be created for them
in the relevant discipline/trade.
d. Appointments be offered within four months of approach being
made, with prospective effect, subject to a further scrutiny that
the appellants did possess the requisite qualifications as on the
dates they had applied for selection, and upon verification of their
antecedents.
13
e. A reasoned order shall be passed by the appointing authority,
should appointment be declined to any appellant. Such order must
be communicated to him without any delay.
f. Since the appellants, the members of the Regd. Society and the
impleaded candidates were not interviewed, the respondents
would hold the interview of the candidates at the earliest,
determine the inter-se merit as per the rules and proceed to
appoint the eligible candidates.
g. Once appointed, the appellants will be entitled to all benefits
(other than back wages, seniority and promotion) while in service.
h. Appellants will also be eligible for pension if, after appointment,
they qualify for pension as per the prevalent rules.
i. If gratuity is paid to the I NSTRUCTORS at the time of retirement on
superannuation, the appellants shall also be entitled to the same
subject to being qualified therefor.
24. The appeals are allowed on the aforesaid terms.
25. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
………..…………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
…………..………………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI.
July 24, 2026.
14