Allahabad High Court
Berojgar Audyogik Kalyan Samiti And 39 ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 10 November, 2022
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 63110 of 2014 Petitioner :- Berojgar Audyogik Kalyan Samiti And 39 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Mishra,A.N. Tripathi,R.P. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Ram Dular With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65712 of 2014 Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra And 23 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Pandey,R.K. Ojha,V.K. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. - 2014/11118,Bal Mukund With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41191 of 2015 Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh Sengar,Prasant Rathor,Rajendra Kumar Gupta,Sanjay Gangwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42176 of 2015 Petitioner :- Vishal Srivastava And 4 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava,Chandra Shekhar Saran,Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava,Ved Byas Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Arvind Kumar Goswami With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21272 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vijay Prakash Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushant Misra,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25428 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Rizwan Ahmad,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2034 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar,Sushant Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3646 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chitranshu Srivastav,Devi Prasad Tripathi,Lalmani Srivastava,Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Purnendu Kumar Singh,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4886 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Pandey,Devi Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5348 of 2019 Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Gupta And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar,Sushant Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Siddharth Singhal,Deepmala With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5517 of 2019 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubhranshu Pandey,Ankur Sharma,Kalpana Sinha,Namit Srivastava,Utkarsh Srivastava,Vallabhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Kumar Tripathi With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5771 of 2019 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Saksena,Govind Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Raj Kumari Devi With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5773 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shiv Prakash And 19 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,Lalmani Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Ajay Kumar Sharma With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5774 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh And 42 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,Lalmani Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Arvind Kumar Goswami With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5777 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Ji And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,L.M. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5779 of 2019 Petitioner :- Abha Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kr. Srivastava,L.M. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Y.P. Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5782 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sushil Chaurasiya And 30 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,Hari Nath Tripathi,Lalmani Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Chandra Jeet Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5783 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar And 16 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Kumar Saxena,Amar Sukh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5785 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar And 14 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Kumar Saxena,Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava,Ved Byas Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Amar Sukh Rai,Vinay Kr.Pandey With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5787 of 2019 Petitioner :- Harish Kumar Patel And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar,Sushant Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5790 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Manjhi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devi Prasad Tripathi,Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5795 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sharda Prakash Yadav And 27 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,L.M. Srivastava,Ramesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6498 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hari Om Vishwakarma And 17 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Kumar Saxena,Govind Kumar Saxena,Pankaj Saksena,Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10820 of 2019 Petitioner :- Piush Kumar And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar,Sushant Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Deepmala Srivastava,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21295 of 2019 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubhranshu Pandey,Ankur Sharma,Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Gaya Prasad Singh,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 265 of 2020 Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Rai And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar,Sushant Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Om Prakash Gupta,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3410 of 2020 Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Vocational Education And Craft Development Department And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Purnendu Kumar Singh,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13448 of 2020 Petitioner :- Gurdwar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devi Prasad Tripathi,Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3894 of 2021 Petitioner :- Om Prakash And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shridhar Tripathi,Sushant Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Siddharth Singhal,Ved Mani Tiwari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11648 of 2021 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Chauhan And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jitendra Prasad Mishra,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16951 of 2021 Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra Yadav And 13 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashpal Yadav,Lalji Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Neeru Devi With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18297 of 2021 Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Pandey And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Agrahari,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Pankaj Kumar,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12279 of 2022 Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravesh Kumar,A.S.G.I.,Rajiv Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Srivastava,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14101 of 2022 Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra Gupta And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Dhar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Raj Kumari Devi,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14560 of 2022 Petitioner :- Anshul Gaur And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,A.S.G.I.,Kailash Prakash Pathak,Siddharth Singhal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5345 of 2015 Petitioner :- Umesh Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Lallan Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. - 2015/0191,U.S. Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23900 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manendra Singh And 18 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Kumar Saxena,Himanshu Shekhar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13423 of 2019 Petitioner :- Umakant Yadav And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Girish Kumar Srivastava With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36000 of 2017 Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Singh And 23 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Kumar Saxena,Pankaj Saksena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,D.K.Gupta,K.S.Kushwaha With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 56479 of 2015 Petitioner :- Berojgar Audyogik Kalyal Samiti And 18 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Mishra,A.N. Tripathi,R.P. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra and other learned counsels for the petitioners and learned counsels for the respondents.
Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate submits as under :-
(i) The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institution (Instructor) Service Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1991") were initially enacted by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 8 (B) of the Rules, 1991 provided the successful training from Central Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as "CTI") in respective trades, as preferential qualification. Subsequently, the Central Government issued a direction vide DGE&T-19 (20) / 95 - OD dated 24.07.1996 indicating that the Government of India has accepted the recommendation of the council and accordingly, requested all the State Governments / Union Territories to amend the recruitment Rules providing the C.T.I. certificate as essential qualification for the post of instructor. Consequently, the State Government accepted the recommendation / direction of the Government of India and amended Rules 1991 by the second amendment Rules dated 08.08.2003, whereby Craft Instructor Training certificate (CTI certificate) was made essential qualification for recruitment on the post of Instructor. However, by the third amendment Rule 2003, the aforesaid essential qualification of CTI certificate was made preferential by amending Rule 8 of Rules, 1991. Hence, the amendments were challenged in various writ petitions. The leading writ petition was Writ-A No.1822 of 2004 (Upendra Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) which were allowed by Hon'ble Single Judge by judgement dated 08.08.2006. The amendment made in Rule 8 of the Rules, 1991 by third amendment Service Rules, 2003 was held to be violative of Constitutional Scheme of distribution of legislative powers, as also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The advertisement dated 13.12.2003 was also quashed with a direction that those, who have obtained qualification up to the date of fresh advertisement shall also be considered for selection and that all those candidates, who were within the age limit on the last date of receiving applications pursuant to advertisement dated 20.08.2003, shall also be eligible to apply for selection in pursuance of fresh advertisement. The aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 08.08.2006 was upheld by the Division Bench judgement dated 12.10.2006 in Special Appeal No. 1078 of 2006 (Pawan Kumar Sagar vs. State of U.P. and others). Thus, it stood settled that CTI shall be an essential qualification for recruitment on the post of instructors and yet by the impugned Rule 9(B) and its proviso, Rule 15(3) and its proviso and Rule 17(3) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institution (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2014"), has been enacted the State Government, providing the "CTI certificate" as a preferential qualification.
(ii) Apart from above, the impugned Rules, 2014, also accommodates even those, who do not possess the preferential qualification, by making a provision that if they are appointed then they may acquire qualification within three years, else they shall not be entitled to first increments. Thus, the essential qualification as prescribed by Government of India, has been completely done away and even prescribed preferential qualification is merely an eye wash and just to appoint incompetent and ineligible persons to obtain Government employment, contrary to the Rules and the Constitutional scheme.
(iii) By Rule 16(3) of the Rules, 2014, it has been provided that in making selection by direct recruitment, the merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared by awarding marks as under :- (a) 50% of the percentage of marks secured in High School examination and, (b) 20 % of the marks secured in national trade certificate test / national apprentice training test or 20% of the percentage of marks secured in diploma and degree examination and (c) 15 % of the percentage of the marks secured in CTI and BOT test. Thus, the quality point marks for determination of merit for the purposes of preparation of select list is wholly arbitrary and is in the teeth of the direction of the Government of India and the very basic object behind creation of ITI. Very little marks i.e. 15% of the marks has been provided for the most essential qualification of CTI whereas 50% marks has been provided for the academic qualification which has nothing to do with the merits of the candidates and suitability for the employment.
(iv) Thus, the impugned provisions of the Rules, 2014 are violative of Constitutional Scheme as well as the field occupied by the Government of India, and the impugned Rules being arbitrary, are also violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(v) Reliance is placed upon the judgement of learned Single Judge and Division Bench judgement of this Court referred above and the judgement of Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Pathak vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1978 SC (803) (Para 24, 25 and 26)
(vi) When the present writ petitions were filed, an interim order was granted by this Court providing that "meanwhile selection process will go on but the result of selection will be subject to the final decision of this writ petition." Despite this interim order, the State Government, in its wisdom, has issued appointment letters and appointed number of candidates, who do not possess the basic essential qualification. None of the candidates so appointed conditionally, have not come forward to oppose these writ petitions.
(vii) The degree and diploma holders cannot be tested together. Therefore, Rule 9 of the Rules, 2014 read with the appendix, is arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(viii) The letters of the Government of India dated 26.05.2014, 27.05.2014 and 07.01.2016 are not relevant for the purposes of the present controversy and they do not dilute the essential qualification of CTI certificate. Therefore, the reliance as may be placed by Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and the learned Additional Advocate General would be of no help to the respondents.
Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate has concluded his argument.
No time is left today.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions, except Sri C.B. Yadav and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocates appearing in some of the writ petitions; have jointly stated that they adopt the submissions made by Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate and therefore, they do not want to make any further submissions.
Sri C.B. Yadav and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocates want to argue the case on 16.11.2022.
Since validity of the Rules, 2014 is under challenge, therefore, we request the learned Advocate General to assist the Court in the matter after obtaining complete instruction from the State Government.
Put up on 16.11.2022 at 2:00 P.M. for further hearing along with all connected and similar writ petitions.
Order Date :- 10.11.2022 Manoj