State Can Prescribe Higher Job Qualifications Than Central Guidelines Without Being Repugnant: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rule Amendment Under Art 309 - 2025-07-08

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Stricter Qualification for ITI Instructors, Dismisses Challenge to Rule Amendment

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has upheld the state government's power to prescribe higher educational qualifications for public employment than those suggested in central government guidelines. A division bench of Justice Anand Sharma and Justice Inderjeet Singh dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the mandatory requirement of a National Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC) for the post of Junior Instructor in government ITI colleges.

The court ruled that the state's amended recruitment rules are not repugnant to the central guidelines and do not unconstitutionally lower educational standards; rather, they elevate them.

---

Case Overview

The petitioners, working as Guest Faculty Instructors, challenged the validity of a Rajasthan government notification dated September 1, 2023. This notification amended the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service Rules, 1975, making the NCIC/CITS certificate a mandatory qualification for direct recruitment of Junior Instructors. Consequently, they also challenged the recruitment advertisement dated March 11, 2024, which was based on these new rules.

The core legal question was whether the state's rule, enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution, was repugnant to an Office Memorandum (O.M.) issued by the central government's Directorate General of Training (DGT) on June 30, 2023.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments: - The petitioners argued that the state's mandatory requirement of an NCIC/CITS certificate was rigid and conflicted with the more flexible DGT guidelines. - They contended that the central O.M. allowed for the recruitment of candidates without the certificate, with a provision to acquire it within three years of appointment, especially where courses or qualified candidates were unavailable. - Citing constitutional provisions, they argued that since technical education standards (Entry 66, List I - Union List) prevail over the general subject of education (Entry 25, List III - Concurrent List), the state law must yield to the central executive instructions. - They also claimed that not enough time was given to candidates to acquire the one-year certificate between the rule amendment and the job advertisement.

Respondents' Arguments: - The State Government, supported by the Union of India, countered that the amended rules were not in conflict with the central guidelines but in fact, aimed to raise the standards of technical training. - They argued that a state is empowered to prescribe qualifications higher than the minimum standard set by a central body. Lowering the standard would be impermissible, but raising it is not. - The state highlighted a previous High Court judgment in Rajveer Singh (2017) , which had directed the state to align its recruitment with NCVT guidelines, which included the CITS/NCIC qualification. - Crucially, the state provided data showing an overwhelming number of applications (around 13 times the number of posts) from candidates who already possessed the mandatory CITS certificate, proving there was no shortage of qualified individuals. For the one trade ('Solar Technician') where applicants were scarce, the state had already granted relaxation as per the central O.M.

Court's Legal Reasoning and Precedents

The High Court meticulously analyzed the constitutional framework governing the legislative powers of the Union and the State.

"There ought to be a presumption in favour of the validity of the legislation and every attempt should be made to reconcile between State law and Central Law and construe both in a manner so as to avoid any possibility of repugnance between such laws," the bench observed.

The court found no direct conflict or repugnancy, noting that both the central O.M. and the state's amended rule emphasize the necessity of the NCIC/CITS certificate. The relaxation in the central O.M. was conditional—applicable only where courses or qualified candidates were unavailable. Since Rajasthan had an ample supply of certified candidates, mandating the qualification at the entry stage was justified.

Citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. , the bench reiterated a settled legal principle:

"A State has, therefore, the right to control education including medical education so long as the field is not occupied by any Union Legislation... Of course, once the minimum standards are laid down by the authority having the power to do so, any further qualifications laid down by the State which will lead to the selection of better students cannot be challenged on the ground that it is contrary to what has been laid down by the authority concerned."

The court also relied on State of T.N. vs. S.V. Bratheep to affirm that prescribing a higher minimum qualification enhances excellence and is permissible.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that the petitioners had "utterly failed" to prove that the state's notification was unconstitutional, beyond its legislative competence, or repugnant to the central guidelines.

"Merely, for the reason that Schedule sought to be substituted vide Notification dated 01.09.2023 is silent in respect of manner of relaxation to be granted... would not invalidate the Notification... for the reason that it goes without saying that O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Central Government would govern the field, where the State Rules are silent," the court clarified.

Dismissing the writ petitions, the bench allowed the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to proceed with the recruitment process for 1821 Junior Instructor posts. The decision reinforces the autonomy of states to set higher benchmarks for public employment to ensure excellence, provided they do not contravene or dilute the minimum standards established by central authorities.