Chattisgarh High Court
Anil Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:15813-DB
signed
by NAFR
SHAYNA
KADRI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1881 of 2022
1 - Deepak Kumar Gupta S/o Santosh Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o
Ward No. 13, Near Agriculture Office, Baikunthpur, District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development
Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Union Of India, Through Director, Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Skill
Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training,
Kaushal Bhawan, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi
3 - Director, Employment And Training, First Floor, Block No. 4,
Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPS No. 4005 of 2023
1 - Kuldeep Pandey S/o Shri Anil Pandey Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Hapa, Post Sakri, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Yashwant Kumar S/o Shri Chinta Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Budera, Post Bhatagaon, Tehsil Devkar, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through It Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar 2 - Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan, First Floor, Block 4, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director General Tarining (Dgt), Government Of India, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship Employment, Exchange Building Library Avenue, Pusa Complex, New Delhi 110012
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4021 of 2023 1 - Anil Kumar Yadav Son Of Shivlal Yadav, Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village Daldali, Post Sarona, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chinta Ram, Son Of Khorbahara, Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Amlidih, Post Singarpur, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
3 - Suraj Prakash Prajapati, Son Of Gauri Shankar, Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village And Post Karra, Tehsil Rajpur, District- Balrampur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Rishi Kumar, Son Of Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village Khamhariya, P.O. Marda, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
5 - Sanjay Kumar Janghel, Son Of Meghnath Janghel, Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Borai, Post Kutelipara, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District K.G.G. Chhattisgarh.
6 - Dharmendra, Son Of Sukhadeo Ram, Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village And Post Baldeopur, Tahsil Khairagarh, District- K.C.G. Chhattisgarh.
7 - Mukesh Kumar Dindekar, Son Of Ramsarjeevan Dindekar, Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Ninva, Post Monhora, Tehsil Tilda, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
8 - Reekpal Das, Son Of Latmar Das, Aged About 31 Years Reisdent Of Village Dhaurabhatha, Post Itar, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh, Chhuikhadan Gandai. Chhattisgarh.
39 - Gaukaran, Son Of Narad Ram, Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Amlidih, Post Singarpur, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgrh.
10 - Manoj Kumar Kanwar, Son Of Sukumar Singh Kanwar, Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Post Nagrda, District Janjgir -Champa Chhattisgarh.
11 - Shiv Prasad Mohan Lal, Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Barekal Kala, Post Parsada, Tehsil Hasoud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
12 - Roshan Kumar, Son Of Dubdy, Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Lewai, Post Khisora, Block Baloda, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
13 - Virendra Kumar, Son Of Sant Kumar, Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village And Post Tejpur, Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
14 - Shiva Banjare, Son Late Late Ram, Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Of Village Parsadih, Post Sendri, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District- Sakti Chhattisgarh.
15 - Pawan Kumar Dwivedi, Son Of Pannalal Dwivedi, Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Of Village And Post Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh.
16 - Dev Prasad Rajwade, Son Of Rama Rajwade, Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Village Sambalpur, Post Latori, District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
17 - Kishor Kumar Rana, Son Of Naresh Kumar Rana, Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Of Village Bansla, Post Sambalpur, Teh- Bhanupratappur District- Kanker Chhattisgarh. 18 - Satya Narayan Khuntey, Son Of Ramgilas Khuntey, Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Of Village Chisda, Post Pendri, District Sakti Chhattisgrh.
19 - Vijay Kumar, Ganjeer, Son Of Prabhu Ram Ganjeer, Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Of Village And Post Sarona, Tehsil Narharpur, District
-Kanker Chhattisgarh.
20 - Deepa Gajendra Daughter Of Soman Gajendra, Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Bhatgaon, Tahsil Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s) Versus 4 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development Employment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Union Of India, Through Director, Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training, Kaushal Bhawan, New Delhi, 3 - Director, Employment Of And Training First Floor, Block No. 4, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava, Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3520 of 2023 1 - Raghuweer Kumar Kori S/o Arjun Lal Kori Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Nargoda, Police Station Seepat Nargoda, Masturi, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Prashant Kumar Sahu S/o Gandhi Ram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Mq- Basant Vihar Colony, Bachra, Police Station Piparwar, Tandawa, Chatra, District : Chatra *, Jharkhand 3 - Ramchand Patel S/o Rameshwar Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No.07, Kadam Chowk, Hirri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur, Through Its Secretary C.G. P.S.C. Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training, Secretariat, District : New Delhi, Delhi
--- Respondent(s) 5 WPS No. 3506 of 2023 1 - Sunil Singh Tomar S/o Raghuveer Singh Tomar Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 99 Baloda Bazar Housing Board Colony, Balodabazar- District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Duvendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Vishvanath Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o Motibadi Parshuram Ward Bhatapara Nagar Panchayat, Balodabazar- District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Directorate Employment And Training (Training Side) Through Director Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan, Block -4, 1st Floor Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Directorate Of Technical Education, Through The Director, Hod Building, Block-3, 3rd And 4th Floor Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5 - Director General Of Training (Dgt) Employment Exchange Building, Library Avenue, Pusa Complex, (Ddg Ii) New Delhi - 110012
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3375 of 2023 1 - Prakash Patel S/o. Vishnu Charan Patel, Aged About 22 Years R/o. House No. 100, Barmuda, Sharda Chowk, Dipapara, Barmunda, Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through It Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education, And Employment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, First Floor, Block 4, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Borad (Vyapam). Through Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector -19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director General Training (Dgt), Government Of India, Ministry Of Skill Development And Enterpreneurship Employment, Exchange Building Library Avenue,) Pusa Complex, New Delhi - 110012.
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3441 of 2022 1 - Puja Ranee D/o Tuka Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Selud, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Of India Through Director, Govt. Of India, Manistry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training, Kaushal Bhawan, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Director Employment And Training, First Floor, Block No. 04, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3329 of 2022 1 - Lilendra Janghel S/o Girwar Janghel Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Oteband, Bateband, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 2 - Union Of India Through Director , Government Of India, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training , Kaushal Bhawan, New Delhi.
3 - Director Employment And Training , First Floor, Block No. 4, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3322 of 2022 1 - Rohit Kumar Yadav S/o Ganesh Ram Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 10 , Village Betra , Post Rengale, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Of India Through Director , Government Of India, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training , Kaushal Bhawan, New Delhi.
3 - Director Employment And Training , First Floor, Block No. 4, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3522 of 2022 1 - Amit Kumar S/o Laxman Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Patel Para, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, Nakna,, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretaty, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 2 - Union Of India Through Director, Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training, Kaushal Bhawan, New Delhi.
3 - Director, Employment And Training, First Floor, Block No. 4, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5560 of 2023 1 - Kamlesh Sahu S/o Shri Bhagbali Sahu, Aged About 24 Years Working As Guest Lecturer, Government Industrial Training Institute Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Dular Ram, Aged About 31 Years Working As Guest Lecturer, Government Industrial Training Institute Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Mahadev Sahu S/o Shri Goverdhan Sahu, Aged About 27 Years Working As Guest Lecturer, Government Industrial Training Institute Pandariya, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Nand Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Heeralal Yadav, Aged About 27 Years Working As Guest Lecturer, Government Industrial Training Institute Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Bhishm Pratap S/o Shri Thanda Ram, Aged About 24 Years Working As Guest Lecturer, Government Industrial Training Institute Hathbandh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Teenu Dhruv D/o Shri H.S. Dhruv, Aged About 25 Years Working As Guest Lecturer, Government Industrial Training Institute Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Freema Mahipal D/o Shri Harilal Mahipal Aged About 25 Years Working As Guest Lecturer, Government Industrial Training Institute Gurur, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Aditya Kumar Yadu S/o Kamlesh Kumar Yadu, Aged About 26 Years Working As Guest Lecturer, Government Industrial Training Institute Manpur, District Mohla- Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (Chhattisgarh)
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary, Mantralaya, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 9 2 - Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- 4, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal, Through The Examination Controller, Office At Vyapam Bhawan, North Block Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - State Council For Vocational Training, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Office At Utility Block, Old Building Of Development Authority, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5550 of 2023 1 - Omprakash S/o Toran Ram, Aged About 29 Years R/o 255 Ward No. 13, Gaura Chowk Village Rankadih, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Pushpendra Dewangan S/o Heera Lal Dewangan, Aged About 28 Years R/o 45/1068, Sangharsh Nagar Maa Parmeshwari Mobile Shop Raipur Sunder Nagar District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Directorate Of Employment And Training (Training Side) Through Director Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, 1st Floor Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Directorate Of Technical Education, Through The Director, Hod Building, Block 3, 3rd And 4th Floor Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001.
--- Respondent(s) 10 WPS No. 5686 of 2023 1 - Narendra Prasad Patel S/o. Raghunath Prasad Patel, Aged About 26 Years Trade Name - Mechanic Diesel, Address - Ward No. 06, Patel Para, Semrapara, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Triloknath Banjare, S/o. Kamata Prasad Banjare, Aged About 22 Years Trade Name - Mechanic Diesel, Address - Ward No. 18, Bhatha Para Pondidalha , District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jay Prakash Netam, S/o. Madhuram Netam, Aged About 25 Years Trade Name - Mechanic Diesel, Address - Ward No. 17, Bade Bendari Bayakapadar Para District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chhotu Ram S/o. Madhuram Netam, Aged About 24 Years Trade Name - Mechanic Diesel, Address - Ward No. 09, H.N. 113 Shriha Para Palari District -Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Sujeet Kumar Sahu, S/o. Beduram Sahu, Aged About 30 Years Trade Name - Welder, Address - H.N. 134 Laxmi Chowk, Bhatgaon Dhamtari, District -Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 6 - Moksha Kumar, S/o. Sada Ram Kodopi, Aged About 28 Years Trade Name - Fitter, Address - Ward No. 07, Dhedkoha, District -Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Dilip Kumar Thakur, S/o. Krishna Kumar, Aged About 25 Years Trade Name - Fitter, Address - H.N. 19 Village Imali Padar Post - Antagarh, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Devenera Kumar, S/o. Nammu Ram, Aged About 26 Years Trade Name - Fitter, Address - Salhe Tola, Godulwahi District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Niranjan Sahu, S/o. Gautam Sahu, Aged About 26 Years Trade Name - Fitter, Address - Leenjir, Loharsingh District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
10 - Rupesh S/o. Breezelal, Aged About 31 Years Trade Name - Fitter, Address - Maripara, Sitlawand Khor Khosa Bastar, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Duleshwari Jaangde, D/o. Ramsharan Jaangde, Aged About 27 Years Trade Name - Fitter, Address - Ward No. 11 Kharora Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Anjali D/o. Sukaluram Saha, Aged About 24 Years Trade Name - Fitter, Address - H.N. 132, Ward No. 21 Mahima Sagar Ward Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
1113 - Khilendra Kumar, S/o. Tek Ram, Aged About 24 Years Trade Name
- Electrician, Address - Daihaan Para Jata Ward No. 9 Bemetara, District - Bemeta Chhattisgarh.
14 - Manish Kumar Dhruw, S/o. Bharat Ram, Aged About 25 Years Trade Name - Electrician, Address - Ward No. 9 Bhoyna Naya Para Dhamtari, District - Dhemtari, Chhattisgarh. 15 - Buddhesh Kumar, S/o. Kanhaiya Ram, Aged About 23 Years Trade Name - Electrician, Address - Parpodi, Bemetara, District - Bemeta, Chhattisgarh.
16 - Rudra Pratap Singh Shori, S/o. Shankar Ram Shori, Aged About 23 Years Trade Name - Turner, Address - Patel Para Singanpur Kanker, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
17 - Dilharan Singh Bervanshi, S/o. Shivprasad Bervanshi, Aged About 24 Years Trade Name - Computer Operator And Programming Assistant, Address - Parsapali, Baloda Bazar, No. 9 District - Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employement, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Directorate Of Empolyment And Training (Training Side), Through Director Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block -4, 1st Floor Nawas Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Directroate Of Technical Education, Through The Director, Hod Building Block -3, 3rd And 4th Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examnation Board, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training, Shram Shakti, Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 110001.
--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3761 of 2023 1 - Varsha D/o Om Prakash Aged About 29 Years Present Address Annapurna Colony, Ganesh Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address-Sahu Para, Ward No. 14, Village-Post-Nariyara, Tehsil - Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 12 2 - Ratna D/o Dev Prasad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village-Post Tilai, Block And Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through It Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education, And Employment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, First Floor, Block 4, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director General Training (Dgt), Government Of India, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship Employment, Exchange Building Library Avenue, Pusa Complex, New Delhi 110012.
--- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Ms. Reena Singh, Mr. Ashwin Panickar appearing on behalf of Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocates For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Advocate General For Union of India : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate For C.G. VYAPAM : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate (Division Bench) (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) 13 Order On Board 07.04.2026 Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
1. The factual matrix as well as the core issue involved in all these writ petitions being identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the respective petitioners challenging the amendment dated 15.05.2019 made in the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, particularly Schedule-III governing the post of Training Officer (Technical Cadre)/Instructor, as well as the consequential recruitment advertisements issued in the year 2023 by the State authorities. The core grievance of the petitioners across all the writ petitions is that the impugned amendment and subsequent advertisements have diluted the essential qualification of Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) by treating it merely as a preferential qualification with limited weightage of 10 marks, instead of recognizing it as a mandatory qualification for appointment to the post of Training Officer. It is contended that such dilution is contrary to the binding guidelines, notifications, and policy directions issued by the Government of India, Directorate General of Training (DGT), Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, particularly the notification dated 26.07.2019 and subsequent communications dated 14 25.11.2019 and 31.01.2020, which mandate CITS as an essential qualification for vocational instructors in ITIs. Further, the petitioners have also challenged the recruitment advertisements issued in 2023 on the ground that the respondent authorities have introduced additional eligibility conditions, such as mandatory teaching experience, which are not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government. It is contended that such conditions not only run contrary to the prescribed standards but also unjustly exclude eligible candidates possessing CITS qualification and relevant field experience, thereby causing grave prejudice. The petitioners submit that the impugned amendment and advertisements collectively result in scaling down the minimum standards of vocational training by overlooking the significance of CITS qualification, which is designed to ensure uniformity, quality, and technical competence among instructors. It is further urged that while other States have incorporated CITS as an essential qualification in their recruitment rules, the State of Chhattisgarh has failed to align its rules with the national policy framework, thereby acting arbitrarily and discriminatorily.
3. In essence, the writ petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the amendment dated 15.05.2019 and the consequential recruitment notifications/advertisements, on the ground that they are ultra vires the guidelines issued by the Government of India, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and detrimental to the standards of vocational education. The 15 petitioners further seek appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to treat CITS qualification as an essential eligibility condition and to conduct recruitment strictly in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Directorate General of Training.
4. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 2883 of 2020 is treated as the lead case for adjudication of the present batch of matters and in the said writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :
"10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declared the said amendment in the notification dated 15.05.2019 in the Rules 2014 i.e. Schedule-III for the post of Training Officer Technical Cadre, Column No. 5, Sr.No. 4 weightage only given to candidates, who have passed from DGT's (ATI/CTI/NVTI/RVTI/ITOT) Advanced Training Institute is ultravires to the guidelines issued by the Directorate General of Training, Govt.
of India.
10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to revised the rules in accordance with guideline issued by the Directorate General of Training, Govt. of India for the post of Training Officer, whereby the CITS should be kept as a essential 16 qualification.
10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate."
5. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners possess requisite technical qualifications in their respective trades, including National Trade Certificates (NTC) issued by Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) and, significantly, the National Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC) obtained under the Crafts Instructor Training Scheme (CITS), duly recognized by the competent authorities under the Government of India. The controversy in the present matters arises from the amendment introduced by the State of Chhattisgarh to the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2014"), vide notification dated 15.05.2019. By way of the said amendment, particularly in Schedule-III relating to the post of Training Officer (Technical Cadre/Instructor), the State Government prescribed that candidates possessing qualifications such as ATI/CTI/NVTI/RVTI/ITOT from the Directorate General of Training (DGT) would be granted only a weightage of 10 additional marks, instead of treating such qualifications, particularly CITS, as an essential eligibility condition. The petitioners contend that they are duly qualified and, in many cases, have also undergone 17 specialized instructor training under the CITS scheme, which is designed to impart both technical proficiency and pedagogical skills necessary for vocational instruction. The said scheme, administered under the aegis of the Directorate General of Training (DGT), Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE), Government of India, aims to ensure uniformity, standardization, and quality in vocational training across the country. Successful completion of the scheme leads to the award of the National Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC), which equips candidates to function as competent instructors in ITIs and allied institutions. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the Government of India, through a series of communications and policy directives, has consistently mandated that the CITS qualification be treated as an essential qualification for recruitment to the post of vocational instructors/Training Officers in ITIs and subsequent directions issued from time to time, categorically require all States and Union Territories to revise their recruitment rules to incorporate CITS as a mandatory qualification. The said directives were issued with the objective of enhancing the quality of vocational education and ensuring that instructors are adequately trained in both technical skills and instructional methodologies. Notwithstanding the aforesaid binding policy framework, the State Government, by virtue of the impugned amendment dated 15.05.2019, diluted the requirement of CITS by conferring only a limited weightage of 10 marks, thereby placing 18 CITS-qualified candidates at par with, or even at a disadvantage vis-à-vis, non-CITS candidates. Further, the amended rules introduced an additional requirement of prior teaching experience, ranging from one to three years depending on the qualification, which, according to the petitioners, is not only contrary to the directives issued by the Government of India but also arbitrary and exclusionary in nature. The grievance of the petitioners is further compounded by the issuance of recruitment advertisements in the year 2023 by the respondent authorities, inviting applications for a substantial number of posts of Training Officers across various ITIs in the State. The said advertisements, issued on the basis of the amended Rules, 2014, prescribed mandatory teaching experience and relegated the CITS qualification to a mere weightage criterion. As a consequence, several petitioners, despite possessing CITS certification and, in many cases, practical field experience or engagement as guest instructors, were rendered either ineligible or placed at a comparative disadvantage in the selection process. The petitioners submit that the impugned action of the State Government is in direct conflict with the standards and guidelines laid down by the Directorate General of Training, which is the apex authority responsible for regulating vocational training and prescribing norms for instructor qualifications. It is further contended that the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), established by the Government of India, has historically 19 played a pivotal role in maintaining uniform standards of training and certification across the country, and the impugned amendment undermines the very objective of such standardization. It is also brought on record that several other States, including Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, and Maharashtra, have duly incorporated the CITS qualification as an essential eligibility condition for recruitment to the post of Training Officer, thereby aligning their recruitment frameworks with the directives of the Central Government. In contrast, the State of Chhattisgarh has persisted with a regime that allegedly dilutes the importance of CITS and imposes additional eligibility barriers such as mandatory teaching experience, thereby adversely affecting qualified candidates. The petitioners further submit that many of them had undertaken the CITS course at considerable personal expense and effort, in the legitimate expectation that such qualification would be treated as essential for recruitment, in line with national policy. Some petitioners are also serving as guest instructors in ITIs and had been accorded preference on the basis of their CITS qualification in previous engagements. However, due to the impugned amendment and subsequent advertisements, their prospects for regular appointment have been severely prejudiced. It is also averred that the petitioners had submitted representations to the competent authorities, requesting revision of the recruitment rules and incorporation of CITS as an essential qualification. However, no effective action has been taken by the 20 respondents, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court by way of the present batch of writ petitions.
6. In sum, the core grievance of the petitioners across the present batch of cases is that the amendment dated 15.05.2019 and the consequential recruitment process undertaken by the State are arbitrary, contrary to the binding directives and policy framework of the Government of India, and detrimental to the objective of maintaining quality and uniformity in vocational education. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate reliefs from this Court to set aside or suitably modify the impugned provisions and ensure that the CITS qualification is accorded its rightful status as an essential eligibility condition for recruitment to the post of Training Officer.
7. Mr. C. J. K. Rao and Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in amending the recruitment rules is wholly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence as well as the constitutional mandate of fairness and reasonableness enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the State, while exercising its rule-making power, is bound to act in a fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary manner. However, the present amendment suffers from manifest arbitrariness as it dilutes an essential qualification, thereby adversely affecting the quality of vocational education and undermining the legitimate expectations 21 of duly qualified candidates like the petitioners. It is further submitted that the amendment dated 15.05.2019 to the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 is ultra vires to the policy directives issued by the Government of India through the Directorate General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship. Learned counsel draws attention to the notification dated 26.07.2019, whereby it has been categorically mandated that the Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) qualification is an essential qualification for recruitment of vocational instructors in both Government and Private Industrial Training Institutes. The State Government, being bound by such policy directions in matters relating to vocational training standards, could not have deviated from the same by treating the said qualification as merely preferential. Learned counsel further submits that despite the mandatory nature of the CITS qualification, the State Government, by way of the impugned amendment, has reduced its significance by assigning it a mere weightage of 10 marks. Such an approach is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the intent and object of the Central Government's directives, which seek to ensure uniformity and quality in vocational training across the country. The amendment, therefore, runs contrary to the binding guidelines issued from time to time by the Government of India and is liable to be struck down on this ground alone. It is also contended that even within the framework 22 of the existing rules, the State Government itself has recognized the importance of the said qualification. A note appended to the rules clearly provides that Training Officers shall be required to pass the Instructor Training Examination from DGT's Advanced Training Institutes, namely ATI/CTI/NVTI/RVTI/ITOT. This clearly indicates that the said qualification is intended to be mandatory in nature or, at the very least, to be accorded priority over other qualifications. However, the impugned amendment is in direct contradiction to this position, as it reduces the qualification to a mere preferential criterion. Learned counsel submits that the amendment dated 15.05.2019, insofar as it provides only weightage to candidates possessing CITS or equivalent qualifications under Serial No. 4 of Schedule-III, is ultra vires the guidelines and policy framework laid down by the Directorate General of Training, Government of India. Such dilution defeats the very purpose of introducing a standardized training mechanism for instructors and compromises the quality of skill development initiatives. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the impugned amendment is unsustainable in law, being arbitrary, contrary to statutory guidelines, and violative of constitutional principles. The same deserves to be quashed and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to treat the CITS qualification as an essential qualification for the post of Training Officer in conformity with the directives of the Government of India.23
8. Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate for the petitioners would submits that the action of the respondent authorities in insisting upon mandatory academic/teaching experience for appointment to the post of Training Officer, without granting any relaxation to candidates possessing CITS qualification, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of constitutional principles. It is contended that such insistence lacks any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and operates to unjustly exclude a class of otherwise highly qualified candidates. It is further submitted that the petitioners are duly qualified under the Crafts Instructor Training Scheme (CITS), which is a specialized training programme designed specifically to prepare candidates for imparting vocational education in Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs). Learned counsel argues that the requirement of three years' teaching experience, if rigidly enforced, effectively bars fresh CITS-qualified candidates from entering the field, thereby defeating the very purpose of introducing a structured instructor training scheme. It is emphasized that a candidate who has just completed the CITS course, despite being fully trained in both technical skills and instructional methodology, would be rendered ineligible solely due to lack of prior teaching experience, which is manifestly unjust. Learned counsel further contends that CITS-
qualified candidates constitute a distinct and superior class, having undergone comprehensive training aligned with the curriculum and teaching standards of ITIs. By imposing a blanket 24 requirement of prior teaching experience and relegating the CITS qualification to a mere weightage criterion, the respondent authorities have effectively diluted the significance of a nationally recognized certification and have overlooked the specialized competence of such candidates. It is also argued that despite repeated representations made by the petitioners to the competent authorities seeking relaxation of the experience requirement for CITS-qualified candidates, no decision has been taken, nor have any reasons been assigned for such inaction. This, according to learned counsel, reflects non-application of mind and arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the executive instructions and policy directives issued by the Directorate General of Training (DGT), Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of India, are binding in nature and ought to prevail over the recruitment rules framed by the State Government. It is contended that the subject of vocational training falls within the ambit of Entries 66 of the Union List and 25 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and therefore, the standards prescribed by the Central Government must be adhered to by the States. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Suresh Kumar Bairagi & Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 775 of 2010 (S/S), decided on 11.03.2011), wherein it was held that the executive 25 instructions issued by the Central Government prescribing CITS as an essential qualification would prevail over conflicting State recruitment rules. The Court further held that preference must be given to CITS-qualified candidates, and only in the absence of such candidates can non-CITS candidates be considered, subject to acquiring the qualification within a stipulated period. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Upendra Narayan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (decided on 08.08.2006), wherein the Court set aside the action of the State Government in diluting the requirement of CITS qualification and reverting to earlier recruitment rules, holding such action to be unsustainable in law. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ajay & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (CWP No. 37892 of 2018 and LPA-640-2022 (O&M), decided on 04.08.2022), wherein the Division Bench categorically held that executive instructions issued by the Central Government under Article 73 of the Constitution, particularly in matters concerning standards of education and training, are binding upon the States and would prevail over recruitment rules framed under Article 309. It is pointed out that the said judgment has attained finality, as the Special Leave Petition preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel has also drawn support from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Raveer Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 26 12145/2016, decided on 12.01.2017), wherein the State was directed to issue a fresh advertisement strictly in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government and the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT). On the strength of the aforesaid submissions and judicial precedents, learned counsel contends that the impugned action of the respondents in not granting relaxation of teaching experience to CITS-qualified candidates, and in diluting the essential nature of the CITS qualification, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to binding Central Government directives. It is thus prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to accord due primacy to CITS qualification and to relax the requirement of academic experience for such candidates, so as to ensure a fair and lawful recruitment process.
9. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned State counsel that the present batch of writ petitions has, during the pendency of proceedings, been rendered infructuous in light of the subsequent policy decision taken by the Government of India. It is submitted that the very foundation of the petitioners' challenge was premised upon the assertion that the qualification of CITS ought to be treated as a mandatory eligibility condition for appointment to the post of Training Officer. However, the Central Government, through a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Directorate General of Training, has clarified and modified the 27 earlier position by holding that CITS is no longer a mandatory qualification, and that candidates not possessing CITS are also eligible to participate in the recruitment process, albeit with a provision of preferential treatment to those holding CITS qualification. It is further submitted that in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the dispute raised by the petitioners stands fully addressed, inasmuch as the recruitment framework now provides that candidates possessing CITS qualification shall be accorded preference in the selection process. In fact, the State has already incorporated such preference by awarding additional weightage of 10 marks to candidates possessing CITS qualification, thereby duly recognizing the enhanced merit and specialized training of such candidates. Consequently, the grievance of the petitioners, which was primarily directed against the alleged non-recognition of CITS as an essential qualification, no longer survives for adjudication, and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed as having become infructuous. Without prejudice to the above, it is further submitted that the challenge to the amendment dated 15.05.2019, incorporated in the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, is wholly untenable in law. The petitioners have failed to make out any legally sustainable ground for challenging the vires of the said Rules. It is a settled principle that statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India carry a presumption of constitutionality, and can be assailed 28 only on limited and well-defined grounds, namely lack of legislative competence, violation of constitutional provisions, inconsistency with the parent statute, or manifest arbitrariness of such a nature that no reasonable authority could have enacted the same. It is submitted that none of these grounds are attracted in the present case. The petitioners have neither challenged the legislative competence of the State Government nor demonstrated any conflict between the impugned Rules and any constitutional or statutory provision. The entire grievance of the petitioners is essentially rooted in personal inconvenience and perceived disadvantage arising out of the eligibility criteria, which by itself cannot be a ground to invalidate a statutory rule. It is well settled that individual hardship or reduction in chances of selection does not render a rule unconstitutional. The learned State counsel further submits that the power to frame, amend, or modify service rules squarely falls within the domain of the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution. Determination of eligibility criteria, including educational qualifications, experience requirements, and weightage parameters, is a matter of policy decision, which lies exclusively within the employer's discretion. Such policy decisions are not amenable to judicial review unless they are shown to be patently arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of constitutional guarantees, which is not the case herein. It is also submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish any violation of their fundamental rights under 29 Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. The impugned Rules apply uniformly to all candidates and do not create any impermissible classification. Merely because certain candidates may find themselves at a relative disadvantage does not render the rule discriminatory or arbitrary. In sum, it is submitted that the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 has effectively resolved the controversy by making CITS a preferential rather than mandatory qualification, the petitioners' grievance no longer survives, and the challenge to the statutory rules is devoid of merit in law. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as infructuous as well as devoid of substance.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate would submit that vocational training is a concurrent subject under the Constitution of India, wherein the Union Government is entrusted with the responsibility of policy formulation, prescription of standards, development of curricula, and certification at the national level, while the day-to-day administration of Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs), including admissions and recruitment, lies within the domain of the respective State Governments/Union Territories. The Directorate General of Training (DGT), under the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, functions as the apex body for laying down norms and standards for vocational training, including training of instructors under the Crafts Instructor Training Scheme (CITS). In furtherance of its mandate, the Union 30 Government has issued various guidelines and communications from time to time, recommending incorporation of CITS as an essential qualification for recruitment of vocational instructors. However, the implementation of such norms, including amendment of recruitment rules, remains within the competence of the State Governments/UTs. It is submitted that no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the Union of India in the facts of the present case.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings, documents, and material available on record, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the present batch of writ petitions.
12. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the grievance of the petitioners, as projected in the present writ petitions, emanates from the amendment dated 15.05.2019 made in the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, whereby the qualification of Crafts Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) was treated only as a preferential qualification carrying limited weightage of 10 marks, instead of being prescribed as an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Training Officer in Industrial Training Institutes. The petitioners have primarily assailed the said amendment and the consequential recruitment advertisements of the year 2023 on the ground that the same are contrary to the earlier policy directions and communications issued by the Central Government, 31 particularly by the Directorate General of Training, wherein CITS qualification was emphasized to be mandatory in nature. However, during the pendency of these writ petitions, a significant development has taken place, which has a direct bearing on the controversy involved herein.
13. The Central Government, through the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, has issued a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023, whereby the earlier position has been clarified and modified. As per the said Office Memorandum, CITS certificate has no longer been retained as an essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Training Officer in ITIs. Instead, it has been categorically provided that candidates not possessing CITS qualification are also eligible to participate in the recruitment process, though candidates possessing CITS shall be accorded preference.
14. From a careful perusal of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023, it is evident that the foundational basis of the petitioners' challenge, namely, that CITS ought to be treated as a mandatory qualification, no longer survives in view of the changed policy framework adopted by the Central Government itself. Once the Central Government, which is the apex authority in laying down standards and norms for vocational training at the national level, has consciously taken a policy decision to treat CITS as a preferential qualification rather than an essential one, the very substratum of the present writ petitions stands substantially 32 eroded. It is also pertinent to note that the grievance projected by the petitioners, in essence, was that the State Government had diluted the importance of CITS by awarding only 10 marks as additional weightage to candidates possessing such qualification. However, in light of the Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023, such preferential treatment by way of additional weightage cannot be said to be inconsistent with the current policy of the Central Government. On the contrary, the same appears to be in consonance with the revised framework, wherein CITS is to be treated as a desirable or preferential qualification.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya Versus Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3811 has held as under :
"11. Administration of justice, as it flows from the above, pertains to investment in all Courts with general, territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. All the powers necessary for constitution and organisation of Courts except this Court, and the High Courts, to some extent, have been invested with the State as well as the Centre, under this Entry.
Laws made by the Centre would necessarily prevail over the State made laws, should there be any inconsistency between the two, and the laws made by the latter shall be unconstitutional to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Central laws, by virtue of the Doctrine of 33 Repugnancy, the contours of which can be well understood by a perusal of the judgment in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India. The Constitution Bench held:
"8. It would be seen that so far as clause (1) of Article 254 is concerned it clearly lays down that where there is a direct collision between a provision of a law made by the State and that made by Parliament with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the pro- visions of clause (2), the State law would be void to the extent of the repugnancy. This naturally means that where both the State and Parliament occupy the field contemplated by the Concurrent List then the Act passed by Parliament being prior in point of time will prevail and consequently the State Act will have to yield to the Central Act. In fact, the scheme of the Constitution is a scientific and equitable distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and the State Legislatures. First, regarding the matters contained in List I, i.e. the Union List to the Seventh Schedule, Parliament alone is empowered to legislate and the State Legislatures have no authority to make any law in respect of the Entries contained in List I. Secondly, so far as the Concurrent List 34 is concerned, both Parliament and the State Legislatures are entitled to legislate in regard to any of the Entries appearing therein, but that is subject to the condition laid down by Article 254(1) discussed above. Thirdly, so far as the matters in List II, i.e. the State List are concerned, the State Legislatures alone are competent to legislate on them and only under certain conditions Parliament can do so. It is, therefore, obvious that in such matters repugnancy may result from the following circumstances:
1. Where the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in the Concurrent List are fully inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable, the Central Act will prevail and the State Act will become void in view of the repugnancy.
2. Where however a law passed by the State comes into collision with a law passed by Parliament on an Entry in the Concurrent List, the State Act shall prevail to the extent of the repugnancy and the provisions of the Central Act would become void provided the State Act has been passed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 254.
3. Where a law passed by the 35 State Legislature while being substantially within the scope of the entries in the State List entrenches upon any of the Entries in the Central List the constitutionality of the law may be upheld by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance if on an analysis of the provisions of the Act it appears that by and large the law falls within the four corners of the State List and entrenchment, if any, is purely incidental or inconsequential.
4. Where, however, a law made by the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Concurrent List is inconsistent with and repugnant to a previous law made by Parliament, then such a law can be protected by obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The result of obtaining the assent of the President would be that so far as the State Act is concerned, it will prevail in the State and overrule the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to the State only. Such a state of affairs will exist only until Parliament may at any time make a law adding to, or amending, 36 varying or repealing the law made by the State Legislature under the proviso to Article 254."
16. In view of the aforesaid development, this Court is of the considered opinion that there remains no live issue requiring adjudication on merits in the present batch of writ petitions. The principal relief sought by the petitioners, namely, to declare CITS as an essential qualification and to quash the amendment treating it as a preferential qualification, cannot be granted in light of the subsequent policy decision of the Central Government itself.
17. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Central Government is binding in nature insofar as it lays down the policy framework to be followed by the States in matters relating to vocational training standards. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the State Government to suitably incorporate and reflect the said policy in its recruitment rules and selection process.
18. Accordingly, while holding that the present writ petitions have been rendered infructuous in view of the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023, this Court deems it appropriate to observe and direct that the State Government shall take necessary steps to align its recruitment rules with the said Office Memorandum and ensure that the criteria prescribed therein, namely, treating CITS as a preferential qualification, is duly incorporated and implemented in letter and spirit for recruitment to 37 the post of Training Officer in all Industrial Training Institutes. This Court expresses its hope and expectation that the concerned authorities shall faithfully adhere to the policy laid down by the Central Government and ensure uniformity and transparency in the recruitment process.
19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
Shayna