JUDGMENT :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Govind Kumar Saxena and Sri Shashinandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ankur Sharma and other learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Bal Mukund, Ram Dular, Om Prakash Gupta, Arvind Goswami, Ajay Singh, Gaya Prasad Singh, Raj Kumari Devi, Neeru Devi, Chandra Prakash Yadav, Manoj Kumar Singh, Pankaj Kumar, Purnendu Kumar Singh, Shitla Prasad Gaur, Sudarshan Singh, Rizwan Ahmad and Arvind Singh, learned Central Government Standing Counsels for Union of India, Sri Ajeet Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare and Sri Jigar Khare, learned counsels for the newly impleaded respondent Nos.8 to 13/successful candidates in the leading Writ-A No.63110 of 2014 and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avanish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the leading Writ-A No.63110 of 2014.

2. Learned counsels for the parties have jointly stated that facts and controversy involved in this bunch of writ petitions is similar. Therefore, with their consent, all the writ petitions have been heard together on several occasions and the Writ-A No.63110 of 2014 (Berojgar Audyogik Kalyan Samiti And 39 Ors vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors) is treated as the leading writ petition, which has been filed praying for the following relief:

“i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing illegal advertisement No.2 of 2014 dated 07.11.2014 issued by respondent no.2 and subsequent proceeding for filling 2498 post of instructor in Govt. post of Industrial Training Institute in U.P. (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition);

ii) issue a writ, order or direction declaring the Rule 9(B) including proviso, Rule 15(3) and its proviso and Rule 17(3) of U.P. Government Industrial Training Institute (Instructors) Service Rule, 2014 (Annexure No.3) be declared as ultra vires said Rule 16(3) (iii) and Articles 14 and 16 and specifically the constitutional provision of Article 73 readwith entry 65 and 66 of Union list which override entry 25 of concurrent list of constitution and against order of Central Govt. dated 24.07.1996 issued after accepting recommendation of N.C.V.T. and being also in teeth and in contempt of judgement of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 08.08.2006 and Judgment dated 10.12.2006 of Division Bench in Special Appeal in which State of U.P. wsa party and is binding upon State Government as such.

iii) any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;

iv) Award costs of the writ petition petitioners throughout.”

3. All the petitioners claim that they hold CITS certificate which is an essential qualification as per Government Order dated 24.07.1996 issued by the Union of India in exercise of powers conferred under Article 73 of the Constitution of India with respect to matters of Entry 66 List-I of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution and which was incorporated by the State Government in “The U.P. Industrial Training (Instructors) Services Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1991”) framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India as amended by the Second Amendment Rules dated 08.08.2003. By the Third Amendment Rules, the aforesaid essential qualification was lowered which was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1822 of 2004 (Upendra Narain Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) and by judgment dated 08.08.2006, reported in 2006