top of page

Candidate was not possessing respective educational qualification cannot be ground for termination:

RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI V STATE OF UP & ANR,CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9140 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 7954 OF 2017) – 06.12.2019

The appeal was brought to the Supreme Court of India before a bench consisting of Honourable Justice L. NAGESWARA RAO and Honourable Justice HEMANT GUPTA

The challenge in the present appeal was to an order dated 14th December 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the appeal filed by the appellant challenging

the order dated 26th April, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge was dismissed.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION

The argument of learned counsel for the appellant was that the qualification obtained by the candidate in three different modules was treated to be equivalent to the Fitter Trade of two years duration as per the Circulars issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 18th August, 1988 and 9th April, 1992, therefore, the appellant was eligible candidate for appointment to the post of Fitter.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION

Learned counsel for the State filed an additional affidavit to explain the said three Circulars relied upon by the appellant. It was mentioned that the appellant was not possessed of the qualification as mentioned in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 19913, as amended in the year 2003 called the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 20034. It was pointed out that

Circulars dated 16th December 1983, 18th August, 1988 and 9th April, 1992, relied upon by the appellant, would have no effect unless necessary amendment was being made in the Rules for the appointment of Instructors in the State.

RULE 8 OF AMENDED RULES

Rule 8 of the amended Rules has prescribed the following academic

qualifications:

“8. Academic Qualification – (1) A candidate for recruitment to the post of instructor other than the post

of language instructor (Hindi/English) in the Service must possess the following qualifications:

(1) Educational –

(i) Must have passed Intermediate examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or an Examination recognised by the Government as equivalent, thereto.

(ii) Must have obtained a certificate in the respective trade from the National Council for Training in

Vocational Trades.  OR  Must have obtained National Apprenticeship Certificate in the respective trade.

OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COURT

It was observed that the court found that the stand of the State that the appellant was not possessed of educational qualifications was not tenable. The eligibility condition was that a candidate must have obtained a certificate in respective trade from NCVT. It was not necessary that a qualification prescribed in the Rules had to be possessed in one certificate. It was on the basis of such Circular, the Director of Training and Employment of the State has issued Circulars on 18th August 1988 and on 9th April, 1992 that such qualification would be deemed to be equivalent to the National Trade Certificate. Once the educational qualification had been treated to be equivalent by the State Government in the Circulars issued earlier, the stand of the State that appellant was not qualified had no legs to stand. The State itself had 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, it was found that 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.

JUDGMENT DELIVERED

Thereby, this Honourable Court, after dealing with the facts and circumstances of the case gave its judgment as under,

“Since we have found that 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 within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.”

View/Download Judgment: Rajesh kumar dwivedi v. State of U.P

Tanvi Srivatsan

Comments


Articles

bottom of page