Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A large number of petitioners have approached the High Court for quashing the entire selection process if any carried out pursuant to Advertisement No.02/13 for recruitment on the post of Instructors in various Industrial Training Institutes in Bihar i.e. ITIs. The advertisement in question is Annexure- 6 to the writ application. Yet another relief is for a direction upon respondents to club all vacancies into one instead of in two parts and appoint only Craft Training Instructors certificate holders (hereinafter referred to as 'CTI') or in the alternative appoint persons holding Technical Teachers Training course of one year duration in terms of the instruction of National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) as well as Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. They also want opening for all such candidates between age 18 to 40 from the year 2007 as no appointment or recruitment has been made on a regular basis on the post of Instructors after 2007.

Mr. Amar Nath Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there is the aforesaid letter discloses proposal to have two separate streams of Vocational Instructors one for teaching theory subjects including Workshop Calculation and Science and Engineering Drawing and another for conducting practical, having separate recruitment qualifications and norms as proposed in Annexure I as the Government of India had already accepted the aforesaid recommendations of NCVT for implementation under Craftsmen Training Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "the CTS"). Aforesaid annexures have been brought on record as Annexure 3 clearly laying down that possession of certificate granted under Craft Instructors Training Scheme (one year course) would be essential qualifications for such appointments which is known as Craft Training Instructors (hereinafter referred to as "the CTI"). It is submitted that the aforesaid direction of the Central Government has completely been ignored which would be apparent from the advertisement contained in Annexure 6. It is contended that such advertisement excludes the eligibility criteria which was required to be followed and advertised. Learned counsel has submitted that though the relevant subject matter has been included in the List I that is the Union List of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution as Entry No. 65 and 67 as well as Entry No. 25 in List III, i.e., the concurrent list, however, Entry No. 25 clearly lays down that it would be the subject to the provisions of Entries at Sl. No. 64, 65 and 67 of list I. In the above view of matter, it is urged, that the State authorities could not have ignored such mandate and, thus, the concerned advertisement is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of a Single Bench of Allahabad High Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 1822 of 2004 [Upendra Narain Singh & Ors. Versus The State of U.P. & ors.]. It is urged that in the aforesaid decision it has been held that amendment made in the rules by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 8.8.2006 deviating from the direction of Central Government contained in Annexure 2 and subsequent advertisement for filling up the vacancies on the basis of the aforesaid amendment were held to be invalid being in violation of the Constitutional Scheme of distribution of legislative powers and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As a result subsequent advertisement was quashed and the State authorities were directed to come up with fresh advertisement for the concerned vacancy including those which may have arisen subsequently.

Per contra learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no quarrel with the proposition that, in view of the entry of relevant subject matter in List I and in view of the restrictions which have been imposed in the Entry No. 25 of List III of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution, the criteria fixed by the Central Government would have to be followed while making such appointment. However, it is contended that the advertisement has come up in compliance of the criteria subsequently having been fixed by the Central Government contained in its letter dated 15.12.2008 as contained in Annexure B as well letter dated 28th September, 2010 as contained in Annexure C. It is submitted that the Central Government itself has prescribed minimum qualification for appointment of Vocational Instructors in ITIs for trades under CTS after having been approved by Council (NCVT), to be 10th class pass or equivalent whereas technical qualifications would be Degree in Engineer/ Three year Diploma in appropriate branch of trade concerned or National Apprenticeship Certificate or National Trade Certificate in the relevant trade. It is submitted that subsequent qualification prescribed by the Central Government does not include CTI. So far the candidates who have passed the "Principle of Teaching‟ are concerned that has been recommended as a desirable qualification which has been upheld by a Single bench of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 5380/2010 as well as Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. 896 of 2010.

Learned counsel for the Central Government was directed to seek instruction as to whether the advertisement under challenge is in consonance with the policy of the Central Government specially in view of Annexure 2 issued in the year 1996 as well as Annexure B dated 15.12.2008. Such affidavit has not been filed. However, learned counsel submits that he has been instructed to inform this Court that qualifications etc. for recruitment of instructors for imparting training in ITIs. is to be set by the State Government. In the letters concerned qualification of Instructors is merely a parameter set for granting NCVT affiliation to the ITIs . However, in view of the fact that no ITI can run without affiliation by the NCVT and the State Government claims to have come up with Annexures A and B accepting the recommendation of the Council (NCVT) setting out such parameter by the Central Government‟s parameter for consideration of this case, the Central Government Authorities would be required to file counter affidavit covering this issue as to whether Annexure 2 or Annexure B to the counter affidavit would hold the field for setting out the necessary parameters of the qualifications of the instructors. It has been stated that Annexure B itself that it is relevant for the purpose of affiliation but the parameters appears to have been set for purpose of appointment in such ITIs otherwise affiliation may not be granted to such institution by the NCVT.