Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Arvind Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors . – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8257-8259 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4012-4014 of 2023]
With
Kamlesh Kumar Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors . – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8261 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 13648 of 2023]
With
Berojgar Audyogik Kalyan Samiti – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors . – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8260 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 9685 of 2023]
With
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8262 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 19877 of 2026]
With
Brajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors . – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8263 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 19898 of 2026]
Decided On : 24-07-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sneha Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Gladson Rodrigues, Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, AOR Mr. Jenis V Francis, Adv. Mr. Harikumar V, Adv. Mr. Chakma Purnojyoti, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mr. Prahalad Balaji, Adv. Mr. Parimal Rai, Adv. Mr. Ankur Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Nidhi A. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arnind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Ruhi Sultana, Adv. Mr. Robin Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shweta Jayshankar Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Simran Gupta, Adv. Ms. Jharna Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anurag Ojha , AOR Mr. Nikhil Majithia, AOR Mr. Badri Prasad Singh, AOR Mr. S R Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Pawan, Adv. Mr. Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Rajan Kr Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma B, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma-(b), Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Anurag Ojha , AOR Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR Mr. Nikhil Majithia, AOR Mr. Aviral Kashyap, AOR Mr. Prabhsharan Singh Mohi, Adv. Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, AOR Mr. Raahul Trivedi, Adv. Mrs. Priti Jignesh Joshi, Adv. Ms. Kirti Raj, Adv. Ms. Karanpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Hemang Dixit, Adv. Mr. Harneet Singh, Adv. Mr. Prabodh Kumar, AOR Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Mr. Tamilarasan Varadarajan, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha , AOR Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR Ms. Rupali Panwar, Adv. Mr. Garv Vikas, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Mehta, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv.

Recruitment authorities cannot arbitrarily introduce new qualifying criteria, such as cut-off marks, not established in the governing recruitment rules after the process has commenced, as this violates the mandate to strictly adhere to specified procedures and constitutes an illegal change to the rules of the game.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment Rules - Selection Process - Change of rules mid-way - Prescription of qualifying or cut-off marks by a selection committee that are not stipulated in the recruitment rules is arbitrary and impermissible as it alters the "rules of the game" to the detriment of candidates. (Para 18).

(B) Doctrine of Estoppel - Participation in selection - While candidates cannot ordinarily challenge a selection process after appearing for it, this rule of estoppel does not apply where the process is vitiated by manifest arbitrariness or illegality in the application of recruitment procedures. (Para 11, 19).

Facts of the case:
Applicants participated in a recruitment process for teaching positions. Although they were aware of the rules governing qualification requirements, they were excluded from the final selection stage due to the implementation of internal cut-off criteria that were not authorized by the governing rules. These applicants moved the judiciary, alleging that the selection process was arbitrary and contrary to the established procedure.

Findings of Court:
The selection committee’s creation of additional eligibility thresholds in the form of cut-off marks, which were not provided for in the relevant service rules, rendered the selection arbitrary and inconsistent with the legitimate expectations of the applicants. The court determined that the failure to adhere to the prescribed procedural framework, especially when valid candidates remained excluded while vacancies existed, constitutes a clear case of illegal state action.

Issues: Whether the unilateral introduction of qualifying marks not prescribed in the legal rules constitutes an arbitrary change to the recruitment procedure and whether the doctrine of estoppel prevents candidates from challenging a selection process known to be tainted by arbitrariness.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal framework governing recruitment must be strictly adhered to; authorities cannot implement additional screening mechanisms mid-way that deprive candidates of their right to be considered on merits. Arbitrariness in state action warrants judicial intervention notwithstanding a candidate’s prior participation in the process.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. background of iti recruitment rules and mandatory qualification controversy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. estoppel does not bar challenge to selection processes suffering from blatant illegality. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. examination of administrative selection procedures against prescribed statutory rules. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. arbitrary introduction of unprescribed cut-off marks violates recruitment rules. (Para 18 , 19)
5. equity requires moulding relief despite passage of time for arbitrary state actions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. mandatory judicial order for reconsideration of candidates against existing vacancies. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. To enhance the skills of available workforce in our country (the ‘Skill Capital’ of the world), the Industrial Training Institutes¹[ITIs] were established in the 1950s to ensure quality vocational education and training. The present case concerns recruitment of INSTRUCTORS in these prestigious ITIs by the State of Uttar Pradesh²[SoUP].

2. At the relevant time, the Directorate General of Employment & Training under the Ministry of Labour³[since been reorganized and renamed as the Directorate General of Training (DGT) under the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship], was responsible for setting standards for vocational training. The Government of India, through the aforesaid department, issued directions on 24th July, 1996⁴[No. DGE&T-19 (20) /95-CD] 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 qualifications⁵[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.] for a candidate seeking appointment as an INSTRUCTOR in the ITIs was, a ‘certificate under regular Craft Instructor Training Scheme⁶[CITS] of one year duration.’ This being a mandatory condition, the SoUP accepted this direction and incorporated changes in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training (Instructors) Services Rules, 1991⁷[1991 Rules] by way of 2nd amendment notified on 8th August, 2003.

3. Appellants (128 appellants in the main appeals⁸[Consisting of 124 petitioners in SLP 4012/2023, 3 petitioners in SLP 4013/2023, and 1 petitioner in SLP 4014/2023. Vide order dated 12th December, 2023 in I.A. No. 73237/2023, 122 applicants were permitted to be impleaded in SLP 4012/2023], 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 (Instructors) Service Rules 2014⁹[2014 Rules]. However, notwithstanding awareness in respect of the changes made but desirous of appointment on the posts of INSTRUCTORS, the appellants had applied pursuant to two advertisements issued in the year 2014¹⁰[Advertisement No. 2/2014 for 2498 post of INSTRUCTORS] and 2015¹¹[Advertisement No. 20(7)/2025 for 559 posts of INSTRUCTORS] but did not qualify. They felt prejudiced due to the dilution o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document