Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MANGESH S. PATIL, SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
Rajesh s/o Dnyaneshwar Rathod – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Balu s/o Namdeo Bhosale – Respondent
Writ Petition No.2654 of 2023 With CA/8958/2023 IN WP/2654/2023
Decided on : 24-08-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 309, 73 - Recruitment - Mandatory qualification for appointment - By issuing appropriate order or direction advertisement issued by respondent No.3 i.e. Annexure ‘A-4’ for post of Instructor/Craft Instructor of ITIs may quash and set aside – Observations and conclusions which form basis for Tribunal to pass impugned order are clearly unsustainable in law - Para 19.
Finding of the Court: Tribunal has grossly erred in blindly following decisions of High Courts which held that administrative guidelines issued by DGT under Article 73 will have primacy over recruitment rules framed by State under Article 309 - So long as field for providing for qualification for post of craft instructor is not occupied by a law made by Parliament under Entry No.66 of List I from Seventh Schedule, executive instructions issued by respondent by resorting to Article 73 will not supersede Recruitment Rules, 1983 framed under Article 309 pursuant to which impugned advertisement was issued - Observations and conclusions which form basis for Tribunal to pass impugned order are clearly unsustainable in law - Impugned order directing modification of Clause 15.22 of advertisement before continuing with ongoing recruitment process is not sustainable in law - Directions ‘A’ and ‘B’ from impugned order are quashed and set aside.
Result: Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ORDER :
MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No.761/2022 on 03.02.2023.
2. The Original Application was preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 12 herein with following prayers :
OR
As per latter dated 25.11.2019 and 03.12.2019, 31.01.2020, 27.07.2020, 22.07.2021, 02.02.2022 respondent No.3 may direct to declare and add CTI/CITs qualification is mandatory qualification for appointment of instructor and Craft Instructors in ITIs in pursuance to advertisement dated 17.08.2022 Annexure A-4' and direct to act upon it for this recruitment and further recruitments of instructors in all ITI's.
C. By issuing appropriate order or directions direct the respondent no. 3 to add/incorporate the CTI/CITS qualification as mandatory qualification for post of Instructor and craft instructor ITI, in advertisement no 1/2022 dated 17.08.2022 at clause no. 8 by issuing a necessary corrigendum. D. Necessary directions may kindly be issued against the respondent no.1&3, for constitute the committee if not for modifying Government Resolution dated 18th November-1983 (Annexure-A-4) as per guidelines of DGT for the post of "Craft-Instructors', by incorporating the qualification of CTI/CITS as a mandatory instead of considering it, as preference and accordingly issue modified Government Resolution within a stipulated time.
E. Any other equitable relief, in favor of the applicant, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may kindly be awarded in the interest of justice.
The operative part of the order under challenge reads as under :
ORDER
The Original Application is partly allowed in following terms:-
(A) Ongoing recruitment process is allowed to continue after notifying modified clause No.15.22 of impugned advertisement, which deals with preference to be given to CITS qualified candidates. Thereby, CITS qualified candidates, who secure equal to or more than cut off marks as calculated under provisions of clause 15.20 of the impugned advertisement, should be given preference over non-CITS qualified candidates while preparing select list.
(B) In the event that sufficient numbers of CITS qualified candidates are not available meeting selection criteria of cutoff marks etc., then non-CITS qualified candidates may be selected subject to their acquiring CITS qualification within prescribed time limit.
(C) After ascertaining through the above process of selection, that the State has sufficient number of CITS qualified candidates; respondent Nos.1 and 2 may take steps to amend recruitment rules making professional qualification of CITS as essential qualification for the post of Craft Instructors.
(D) Respondent No. 3 is directed to resolve issue of number of CITS instructors per trade etc. by effective consultation with State Governments.
(E) Interim relief granted by this Tribunal on 07.10.2022 stands merged in this final order.
(F) No order as to costs.
3. Shorn of the verbiage the facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under:
i. The respondent No.16 herein which was respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, namely Director of Vocational Education and Training (hereinafter DVET) issued an advertisement No.1/2022 for appointment of Craft Instructors in the Industrial Training Institutes throughout the State (ITIs) against 1457 estimated vacancies across all the trades. The Education and Employment Department of the Government of Maharashtra published Recruitment Rules, 1983 purportedly under Article 309 of the Constitution for recruitment to the various posts in different ITIs including craft instructors. It provides for minimum educational qualification and experience for the post of craft instru
Statutory recruitment rules under Article 309 of the Constitution prevail over executive instructions, allowing states to set qualifications independently.
The amendment to recruitment rules for vocational instructors is valid and consistent with central guidelines, asserting state competence to legislate on education within constitutional limits.
Point of Law : Appointment has to be made strictly as per terms of the advertisement and in case, the candidates who did not possess the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement were permitted....
The Board of Governors of IIT Kanpur has the authority to establish recruitment rules and qualifications, and courts should not interfere in policy matters unless there is a clear legal error.
Higher qualifications do not disqualify candidates from eligibility if the recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit them, and candidates are estopped from challenging criteria after participating ....
Point of law: A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rationa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
