RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 06-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9140 of  2019)
DECEMBER 06, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors)
Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2003: r.8 – Advertisement
issued by the Directorate of Training and Employment inviting
applications for the various posts of Instructors in the Government
Industrial Training Institute of the State – Appellant applied for
the post of Instructor in the subject of Fitter – Educational
eligibility condition prescribed for the said post was a certificate
in concerned trade from National Council of Vocational Training
(NCVT) apart from two years’ experience – Appellant applied for
such post on the basis of his three educational qualifications:
National Trade Certificate of basic training of one year in
Mechanical Group imparted by Model Industrial Training Institute
(MITI), Haldwani; National Trade Certificate of further training
of six months in Fitter General imparted by MITI, Haldwani; and
National Trade Certificate of further training of six months in
Metrology and Engineering Inspection imparted by MITI, Haldwani
– He was found not eligible for the reason that he did not possess
two years course from NCVT – High Court dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant for the reason that three different
courses undertaken by the appellant could not be treated as
equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Rules –
Appellant relied upon Circular issued on 16th December, 1983
giving equivalency between various disciplines under Restructured
Pattern and Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme
– The said Circular clarified that a candidate having basic course
of Mechanical Trade of one year, Fitting General Module of six
months and Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module of six
months was treated to be equivalent to Fitter of two years training
– Subsequently, another Circular was issued on 9th April, 1992 that
certificate in Fitter Trade of two years granted by MITI, Haldwani
which included one year basic training and six months module be
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 755
755
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
treated equivalent to the National Trade Certificate – Held: The
eligibility condition was that a candidate must have obtained a
certificate in respective trade from NCVT – It is not necessary that
a qualification prescribed in the Rules was to be possessed in one
certificate – The State itself has treated qualification of basic
course in Mechanical Trade Fitter, General Module and Metrology
and Engineering Inspection Module equivalent to conventional
pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme – Thus, the stand of the State
that the appellant was not possessing educational qualification
cannot be sustained – Service law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  The eligibility condition is that a candidate must
have obtained a certificate in respective trade from NCVT.  It
is not necessary that a qualification prescribed in the Rules has
to be possessed in one certificate. Once the educational
qualification has been treated to be equivalent by the State
Government in the Circulars issued earlier, the stand of the State
that appellant is not qualified has no legs to stand. The State itself
has treated qualification of basic course in Mechanical Trade
Fitter, General Module and Metrology and Engineering
Inspection Module equivalent to conventional pattern of
Craftsmen Training Scheme. Thus, the stand of the State that
the appellant was not possessing educational qualification cannot
be sustained. The candidature of the appellant was not validly
rejected. Since candidature of the appellant was rejected on the
ground that he was not possessing educational qualification,
therefore, the State Government is directed to take proper steps
for appointment of the appellant in accordance with law. [Paras
9, 10 and 11] [761-D-H; 762-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9140
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order  dated 14.12.2016 of the  High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 2008 of 2011
Vivek Jain, Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Advs. for the Appellant.
Samat Vijay Singh, Dhruv Arora, Arun Tewatia, Advs.  for the
Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
757
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 14th
December, 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Al

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.