Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Komal Kumawat D/O Shri Prem Chand vs Union Of India on 28 May, 2025
Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16312/2024
1. Komal Kumawat D/o Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 31
Years, R/o 588/2, Kumawat Sadan, Shantipura, Main
Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.).
2. Anees Mohammad S/o Shri Nizam Mohammad Mansuri,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o Nathi Ka Jav, Ward No. 06,
Gandhi Nagar, Kishangarh, Ajmer (Raj.).
3. Rajesh Sihag S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Sihag, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Adrash Nagar, Moleesar Bara, Churu (Raj.),
At Presently Residies Flat No. - 12/b-102, Bhrigu
Apartment, Bhrigu Path, Mansrovar, Jaipur (302020).
4. Neeraj Sharma S/o Shri Krishan Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Teh. Neemkathana, Goonri, Ganwari,
Sikar (Raj.).
5. Ramniwas Saini S/o Shri Manohar Lal Saini, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Ward No. 04 Todpura, Jhunjhunun (Raj.).
6. Mukesh Kumar Kalyan S/o Shri Banwari Lal Verma, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Rela Ki Dhani,
Nawalgarh, Todpura, Jhunjhunun (Raj.).
7. Prithvi Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Kalyan Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Geelo
Ki Dhani, Ladpura, Sikar (Raj.).
8. Suraj Kumawat S/o Shri Premchand Kumawat, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o 588/1, Kumawat Sadan, Shantipura,
Main Road, Ajmer (Raj.).
9. Naresh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Baldev Saini, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Kua Bhadriyala Nohara, Tehsil Nawalgarh,
Kirodi, Jhunjhunu, (Raj.).
10. Divakar Dhenwal S/o Shri Munna Lal, Aged About 36
Years, R/o 7, Harijan Mohalla, Ward No. 29, Sujangarh,
Churu(Raj.), At Presently Residies E 149 Kataria Colony
Ramnagar Vistaar Sodala, 302019, Jaipur (Raj).
11. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Sukhram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Dhandhal Chaina, Churu, Gulpura (Raj.), At Presently
Residies 35 A, Ram Nagar Extension Shyam Nagar ,
Sodala, 302019 - Jaipur (Raj).
12. Pawan Kandela S/o Shri Ram Gopal, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Balaiyon Ka Mohalla, Bagru, Jaipur (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (2 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
13. Nitesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jamna Shankar Sharma,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o 659, Balaji Nagar, Rangbadi
Anandpura @ Phoota Talab, P.i.p. Kota (Raj.).
14. Veerendra Pratap Singh Jadoun S/o Late Shri Man Singh
Jadoun, Aged About 35 Years, R/o East Part Of Plot No.
05, Scheme Tripati Vihar-5, Army Nagar Ke Pass, Niwaru
Road, Jhotwara, Po. Niwaru, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.).
15. Ummed Saini S/o Shimbhu Dayal Saini, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 11, Patel Nagar, Near C.m. School, Jagdish
Colony, Niwaru Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
16. Deepalika Upadhyay D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Updhayay,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dang Ka Pura, Katkar, Hindaun
City, Karauli (Raj.).
17. Kapil Jain S/o Late Shri Ramniwas Jain, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 61/245, Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.).
18. Vinit Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Vasu Dev Sharma, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o 173- A, Engineers Colony Sirsi Road
Panchyawala (Raj.).
19. Sanwar Mal Prajapat S/o Shri Koda Ram Prajapat, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o 77/ward No./07, Gram Hudera,
Hudera Agoona, Churu (Raj.).
20. Ratan Lal Bhaira S/o Shri Mularam Bhaira, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Depalsar, Churu (Raj.).
21. Ankit Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Brahmano Ki Dhani, Jhar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Skill
Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General
Of Training, 7Th Floor, Kaushal Bhawan, New Moti Bagh,
New Delhi, Delhi-110023
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship,
Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (3 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
4. Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, (Training
Wing) Rajasthan, W-6, Gaurav Path, Jodhpur-342011
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur-302018
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18420/2024
1. Mahaveer Prasad Meena Son Of Panraj Meena, Aged
About 39 Years, Resident Of Vpo- Balkash, Tehsil
Keshoraipatan, District Bundi (Raj.)
2. Mukesh Kumar Carpenter Son Of Jagdish Pradad
Carpenter, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Vpo-
Lesarda, Tehsil Keshoraipatan, District Bundi (Raj.)
3. Deependra Kumar Kewat Son Of Shaym Bihari Kewat,
Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Kiro Ka Mohalla,
Balita, Kota (Raj.)
4. Jagdish Nagar Son Of Panchu Lal, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Village Rangpuriya Naya Gawan, Post
Chitawa, Tehsil Keshoraipatan, District Bundi (Raj.)
5. Harish Kumar Shringi Son Of Bajrang Lal Shringi, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Vop-Arnetha, Tehsil
Keshoraipatan, District Bundi (Raj.)
6. Shefali Patel D/o Shri Devi Lal Dangi, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of 219, Dangiyon Ka Guda, Lakhawali,
District Udaipur (Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Technical Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Department Of Personnel, Through Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate General Of Training (Dgt),
Government Of India, Employment Exchange Building
Pusa Complex, Iari, New Delhi. 110012.
4. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (4 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
(Training, E-6, Residence Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. The Rajashtan Staff Selection Board, Rajya Krishi
Prabandhan Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur
Through Secretary.
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15608/2024
1. Asha Ram Meena S/o Duliram Meena, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Atoon Khurd Sawai Madhopur,
Rajasthan.
2. Monu Rathore S/o Devi Shankar, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o H.no. 420, Bharat Bhawan Street, Chhawani,
Ramchandrapura, Kota, Rajasthan.
3. Vinod Kumar S/o Poorna Chand, Aged About 33 Years,
House No. C-193, 80 Feet Road, Mahesh Nagar,
Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Harshit Kumar Jain S/o Vimal Kumar, Aged About 30
Years, Ward 13, Jain Pan Bhandar, Lakheri, Po Lakheri,
Bundi, Rajasthan.
5. Degvijay S/o Murlidhar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
House No. 258/27, Gori Pan Bhandar Ki Gali, Bhori
Mohalla, Chhawani, Kota, Rajasthan.
6. Dhanraj Rathor S/o Devishankar Rathore, Aged About
32 Years, R/o In Front Of Bharat Bhawan, Chhawani,
New Grain Mandi, Kota, Rajasthan.
7. Harish Kumar Gupta S/o Bheem Raj Gupta, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Village Bamuliya Mataji, Tehsil
Anta, Baran, Rajasthan.
8. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Tirth Ram Verma, Aged About 36
Years, R/o 453, First Floor, Omax City 2, Bhiwadi,
Alwar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate
General Of Training, Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Technical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (5 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Jaipur, State Institute Of Agriculture Management
Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.
5. Director, Technical Education, Directorate Of Technical
Education, Jodhpur.
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16323/2024
1. Shashikant Sethiya S/o Shri Chetram Sethiya, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Village/ Post- Mandha Tehsil- Kotputli, Sub
Tehsil- Pawta, Mandha Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Kamal Kishore Yadav S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay Yadav,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Jaipuriyo Ka Badh, Sirsi , Jaipur
(Raj.).
3. Subhanu Singh Jadoun S/o Shri Kailash Singh Jadoun,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Rajput Mohalla, Fatehpur,
Karauli (Raj.).
4. Ratan Lal Meghwal S/o Shri Bhinwa Ram, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Aguna Mohalla Ward No. 14, Rajaldesar(Rural),
Po Rajaldesar,dist Churu (Raj.).
5. Bajrang Lal S/o Shri Hiralal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Ward No. 8, Jhari Kothi, Th- Dataramgarh, Tilokpura, Po-
Trilokpura, Distt- Sikar(Raj.)
6. Girraj Prasad Meena S/o Shri Sitaram Meena, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Behind School, Chatarpura, Jaipur, Dantli
(Raj.).
7. Omprakash Meena S/o Shri Mangal Ram, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Moradi, Kalapara, Tehsil Thanagazi,
Piplai, Alwar (Raj.).
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Skill
Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General
Of Training, 7Th Floor, Kaushal Bhawan, New Moti Bagh,
New Delhi, Delhi-110023
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (6 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
2. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship,
Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
4. Director, Directorate Of Technical Education (Training
Wing), Rajasthan, W-6, Gaurav Path, Jodhpur-342011
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur-302018
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16324/2024
1. Hansraj Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Tehsil Dausa, Jirota Kalan Dausa (Raj.).
2. Sita Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Amarchand Bishnoi, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Flat No. 12/b1-102,bhrigu
Apartment, Bhrigu Path, Mansarovar,jaipur(Raj.).
3. Ram Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Mali Ram Gurjar, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Gurjaro Ki Dhani, Ward No. 02, Risani,
Bhurthal.jaipur(Raj.).
4. Harkesh Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay Meena, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o 98, Meena Pada, Chordi Dausa(Raj.).
5. Chirag Bandhu S/o Shri Dwarkesh Bandhu, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Behind Bajrang Chat, Mukharji Chouraha,
Rajsamand, Kankroli(Raj.) At Presently Residies Flat No.
12/c1-701, Bhrigu Appartment, Bhrigu Path, Mansarovar
(Raj.).
6. Ram Niwash S/o Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Regar Basti, Nawa, Panchwa,nagaur (Raj.) At
Presently Residies H.no. 10/21, Swaran Path,
Mansarovar,jaipur(Raj).
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Skill
Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General
Of Training, 7Th Floor, Kaushal Bhawan, New Moti Bagh,
New Delhi, Delhi-110023
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (7 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship,
Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
4. Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, (Training
Wing) Rajasthan, W-6, Gaurav Path, Jodhpur-342011
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur-302018
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16867/2024
1. Nimish Pandya S/o Late Ashok Pandya, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ward No. 3 Brahman Mohalla, Anjana,
Banswara Rajasthan 327032.
2. Rahul Panchal S/o Narendra Panchal, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Behind Ayurvedic Hospital, Sagwara,
Dungarpur Rajasthan 314025.
3. Nitin Darji S/o Bansi Lal Darji, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Anjana Pipapli Chowk, Anjana Rajasthan 327032.
4. Manisha Rao D/o Amar Singh Rao, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Chitari, Cheentri Dungarpur Chitri
Rajasthan 314035.
5. Manohar Patidar S/o Ramji Patidar, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Mukam Udaiya Patidar Basti, Siloi, Dungarpur
Rajasthan 314026.
6. Mukesh Kumar Dholi S/o Onkar Lal Ji, Bhupal Nagar,
Bhoopal Nagar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan 312204.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Technical Education, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (8 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17366/2024
1. Anees Ahmad Khan S/o Bhoora Khan, Aged About 46
Years, Resident Of Matya Mahal Ke Pass, Hindauncity,
District Karauli
2. Ram Prasad Saini S/o Shri Natthu Lal Saini, Aged About
40 Years, Resident Of House No. 273, Dhani Sakrela,
Village Un Bada Gaon, Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa, District
Dausa-303313
3. Munne Khan Pathan S/o Shri Nanne Khan Pathan, Aged
About 46 Years, Resident Of Sarkari Kila, Bari, District
Dholpur
4. Shri Narayan Kataria S/o Late Shri Jagannath Prasad
Kataria, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Vip Road, Koli
Mohalla, Malakhera District Alwar-301406
5. Chandresh Bhowal S/o Shri Dayal Singh, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of P.no. 7, Ekta Nagar, Manoharpura,
Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017
6. Vishnu Nainiwal S/o Shri Brijendra Nainiwal, Aged About
30 Years, Resident Of Near Shivaji School, Uchain,
Bharatpur-321302
7. Saiyed Shahanbaz Ali S/o Saiyed Sharif Ali, Aged About
30 Years, Resident Of 11A, Madina Nagar, Khonagoriyan,
Jagatpura Road, Jaipur-302031
8. Adil Usama S/o Mufti Khalil Ahmed, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of P.no. 29, Raees Enclave, Noor Nagar,
Luniawas, Goner Road, Jaipur- 302031
9. Altaf Hussain S/o Fariyad Mohammed, Aged About 38
Years, Resident Of Todaraisingh, Tonk-304505
10. Mahender Kumar Balai S/o Shri Khemraj Balai, Aged
About 37 Years, Resident Of Village Bardpura, Post
Amarwasi, Tehsl Jahajpur, Bhilwara-311201
11. Liladhar Sharma S/o Shri Raman Lal Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, Resident Of Chetram Colony, Ward No. 4,
Hindaun City
12. Trilok Malav S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of V/p Takakrwhada Tehsil Digod, Kota
13. Vinesh Patel S/o Shri Devilal Patel, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Mukam Post Paderi, Tehsil Rishbheo, District
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (9 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
Udaipur-313802
14. Shivraj Dhakar S/o Shri Pratap Dhakar, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Village Post Laxmipura, Dhakaran,
Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk-304505
15. Ram Kishor Prajapat S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of De Nagar Bus Stand, Harsuliya,
Madhorajpura, Phagi, Jaipur
16. Dinesh Verma S/o Shri Chouthu Ram Verma, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of Hanuman Nagar, Kuchawara Road,
Tehsil Jahazpur, District Sahapura
17. Anop Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Village Runija, Post Khokhar, Tehsil Parbatsar
District Kuchamancity-Didwana
18. Dhanna Lal Saini S/o Shri Mohar Pal Saini, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Village Karan Bas, Pakhar-Ii Tehsil
Mandawar, District Dausa-321609
19. Umesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Noratmal Sharma, Aged
About 39 Years, Resident Of 1816/1, Rambul Road,
Ajmer-305001
20. Shailesh Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ram Gopal Rawat, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident Of H.no. 314, Gate No. 3, Rajat
Grah Colony, Nainwa Road, Bundi-323001
21. Deepak Kumar Udai S/o Shri Ram Niwas Udai, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident Of Holi Ka Chowk, Village And
Post Shri Nagar, District Ajmer-305025
22. Umesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 33 Years, Resident Of 333, New Water Tank, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur
23. Mahaver Prasad Khatik S/o Shri Nand Kishor Khatik, Aged
About 45 Years, Resident Of House No. A1-41, Shivaji
Nagar, Bundi-323001
24. Poonam Kumari D/o Shri Girraj Prasad, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of J.p. Nagar (Meena Colony), Delhi
Road, Alwar-301001
25. Bharosi Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Gangaram Bairwa, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Bhanwarwada, Post
Aam Kajahjra, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli
26. Akashdeep Joshi S/o Shriram Joshi, Aged About 35 Years,
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (10 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
Resident Of House No. 196 Ward No. 08, Sector No. 11
(A), Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh J. Hanumangarh
27. Sandeep Sharda S/o Shri Badri Prasad Sharda, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Ward O. 25, Spi Karanpura
District Sri Ganganagar
28. Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Deshraj, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Ward O. 4, New Khunja, Hanumangarh Jn.
29. Sana Sabbag S/o Abdul Hameed, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Ganesh Nagar-Ii Borkheda, Kota
30. Priya Chaudhary D/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Chaudhary,
Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 189, Jai Shri Vihar,
District Kota
31. Laxmi Bairwa D/o Shri Om Prakash Bairwa, Aged About
34 Years, Resident Of 196, Veersawrakar Nagar, Kota
32. Narayan Lal Koli S/o Shri Mangi Lal Koli, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of Sector-7, Akhde Ke Pass Keshv Pura,
Kota
33. Shubham Pandya S/o Shri Mahesh Pandya, Aged About
27 Years, Resident Of Tirupati Colony, Tehsil Sagwara,
Dungarpur-314025
34. Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Sharma,
Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Shriram Mandir Ke
Piche, Sunail, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar
35. Ranjana Sharma D/o Shri Ratan Lal Sharma W/o Shri
Labhesh Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of 104,
Vinayak Vihar B.k. Kaul Nagar, Ajmer-305001
36. Mithlesh Sharma D/o Shri Govind Narayan Sharma, Aged
About 43 Years, Resident Of H.no. 1130/28, Hanuman
Nagar, Bihari Ganj, Ajmer-305001
37. Arushi Sharma D/o Shri Jaiprakash Sharma, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of 672F/28 Plot No. 27, Gali No. 5,
Shringr Chauvari, Bihari Ganj, Ajmer
38. Prahlad Regar S/o Shri Ram Prasad Regar, Aged About 43
Years, Resident Of Village Kalyanpura Bori, District Tonk-
304505
39. Gaurav Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Aditya Kumar Joshi, Aged
About 37 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bansur,
Tehsil Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (11 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
40. Chanana Ram S/o Shri Narayan Ram, Aged About 35
Years, Resident Of Chak Dholka Distt Barmer-344001
41. Nikhil Joshi S/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Joshi, Aged About
32 Years, Resident Of Mohangarh, Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand
42. Anil Kumawat S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Kumawat, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Fauj Mohalla, Nathdwara,
Rajsamand
43. Mamta Patidar D/o Shri Ratan Lal Patidar, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Damari, District Dungarpur
44. Alka Choubisa D/o Shri Prem Shanker Choubisa, Aged
About 45 Years, Resident Of House No. 30, Rnt Colony,
Tagore Colony, Dungarpur
45. Manisha Sharma D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Vpo Garh Basai, Tehsil
Thanagazi, District Alwar
46. Bhavna Darji D/o Shri Magan Lal Darji, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Village Wada Ghodiya, Post Sakani,
Tehsil Aspur, District Dungarpur
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Department Of Personnel Through Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship Through Its
Commissioner, Having Its Office At Jhalana Industrial
Area, Jaipur-302004 (Raj.)
4. Directorate General Of Training (Dgt), Government Of
India Through Its Director Having Its Office At
Employment Exchange Building, Pusa Complex, Iari, New
Delhi – 110012
5. Directorate Of Technical Education, Through Its Director
Having Its Office At Training, E-6, Residency Road,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
6. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its
Secretary Having Its Office At Rajasthan Agriculture
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (12 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-
302005
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17984/2024
1. Priyanka Gupta D/o J.p. Kansal W/o Sumeet Gupta, Aged
About 46 Years, Resident Of Scheme No. 2, Lajpat Nagar,
Alwar (Raj.)
2. Laxmi Devi Sharma D/o Satya Narayan Sharma W/o
Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, Resident
Of 24, Ramanand Nagar, Bhind Lal Diggi, Alwar (Raj.)
3. Bhojraj Sharma Son Of Chunni Lal Sharma, Aged About
38 Years, Resident Of Village Nimodiya, Tehsil Chaksu,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Department Of Personnel, Through Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate General Of Training (Dgt),
Government Of India, Employment Exchange Building
Pusa Complex, Iari, New Delhi. 110012.
4. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education (Training,
E-6, Residence Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajya Krishi
Prabandhan Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur Through
Secretary.
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19363/2024
1. Rekha Rathore D/o Bhanwar Singh Rathore W/o
Mahendra Singh Chouhan, Aged About 44 Years, Resident
Of 115 B-Block, Near Bhatnagar Mahasabha, Sector-14,
Udaipur (Raj.)
2. Kinjal Chouhan D/o Shri Mahendra Singh Chouhan, Aged
About 22 Years, Resident Of 115 B-Block, Near Bhatnagar
Mahasabha, Sector-14, Udaipur (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (13 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Department Of Personnel, Through Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate General Of Training (Dgt),
Government Of India, Employment Exchange Building
Pusa Complex, Iari, New Delhi. 110012.
4. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education,
(Training, E-6, Residence Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajya Krishi
Prabandhan Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur Through
Secretary.
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 87/2025
1. Kishore Kumawat S/o Ramesh Chand Kumawat, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Chobdaro Ka Rasta Sambhar Lake,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303604.
2. Ajmer Singh S/o Peetam Singh, R/o Village Sarekhi,
Madha Kankoli, Saipau, District Dholpur, Rajasthan. Pin-
328027
3. Vijay Kumar Borana S/o Chhitar Mal Borana, R/o Asha
Nath Ki Gali, Chota Bazaar, Sambhar Lake, Sambhar,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pin-303604
4. Prashant Kumawat S/o Radhe Shyam Kumawat, R/o Nawa
Road Bus Stand Behind Daak Banglow, Near Kck
Computer , Ward No. 10 Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur ,
Rajasthan, Pin- 303604
5. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shivcharan, R/o 1, Jatab Basti,
Machhariya, District Dholpur, Rajasthan, Pin- 328025
6. Sitaram Meena S/o Chhotu Ram Meena, R/o Baslaxman,
Panwar Deoli Tonk, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (14 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Technical Education, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 978/2025
1. Lakhan Singh Son Of Shri Raman Lal, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of 862, Bachhren, Bharatpur (Raj )
2. Manoj Chopra Son Of Shri Shambhu Dayal, Aged About
36 Years, Resident Of 141, Near Water Tank, Tapookra,
Alwar (Raj.)
3. Dharmveer Son Of Shri Roshan Lal, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Sadhpuri, Bharatpur (Raj )
4. Tanvi Gupta Daughter Of Shri Jaiprakash Gupta, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 06, Ganesh Ji
Road, Shyam Colony, Virat Nagar, Maliwara, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Lokesh Jangid Son Of Shri Rajender Prasad Jangid, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Burja, Tehsil
Malakhera, District Alwar (Raj.)
6. Ravi Kumar Jangid Son Of Shri Devki Nandan Jangid,
Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Burja,
Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar (Raj.)
7. Ms. Shweta Sharma Daughter Of Shri Ramcharan Mistri,
Wife Of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of 43, Janakpuri-Ii, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur
(Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate
General Of Training, 7Th Floor, Kaushal Bhawan, New Moti
Bagh, New Delhi – 110023
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (15 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
Department Of Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship,
Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education (Training
Wing), Rajasthan, W-6 Gaurav Path, Jodhpur- 342014
5. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its
Chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management
Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) 302018
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1659/2025
Piyush Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o 1/528, Kala Kuan Housing Board, District
Alwar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Technical Education, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2668/2025
Gaurav Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma Father/o Ashok Kumar
Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mohalla Bheekam Sa Iyad,
Alwar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Skilled Planning And
Enter And Entrepreneurship Through Its Secretary
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of
Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji Nagar,
Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Vinod Saini Son Of Shri Pappu Ram Saini, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Of Mundiya Ka Bas, Barkhera, Dist Alwar.
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (16 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
5. Pankaj Kumar Son Of Shri Navneet Kumar, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Of Chikani, Bahadpurpur, Alwar, Rajasthan.
6. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Shri Gopi Ram, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village And Post Mandaralla, Tigiyas, Dist
Jaipur.
7. Tanvi Gupta Daughter Of Shri Jaiprakash Gupta, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Ward No 06, Gansh Ji Road, Shyam
Colony, Viratnagar, Maliwara Raj.
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3063/2025
1. Dharam Raj Nayak Son Of Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About
39 Years, Resident Of 101, Meghwal Mohalla, Lasadiya
Kalan, Kota (Raj.)
2. Inder Jeet Singh Son Of Shri Tejraj Singh, Aged About 44
Years, Resident Of House No. 63, Sukhadiya Colony, Near
Police Line Station, Anta Road, Sangod, District Kota
(Raj.)
3. Ramjilal Son Of Phool Chand, Aged About 42 Years,
Resident Of Rawalka, Bajawla, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Department Of Personnel Through Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate General Of Training (Dgt),
Government Of India, Employment Exchange Building
Pusa Complex, Iari, New Delhi. 110012.
4. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education (Training,
E-6, Residence Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajya Krishi
Prabandhan Sansthan, Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur Through
Secretary.
—-Respondents
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (17 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gouttam with
Ms. Sakshi Meena
Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with
Mr. Anurag Mathur
Mr. Lakhan Singh Meena with
Mr. Brijesh Yadav
Mr. Avinash Dhanju with
Ms. Nisha Shekhawat
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
Mr. wajid Ali
Mr. Ved Prakash Saini
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Yash Joshi,
Ms. Tanvisha Pant,
Mr. Sankalp Vijay,
Mr. Priyam Agarwal,
Mr. Shubhendra Agarwal &
Ms. Ritika Naruka
Ms. Mahi Yadav, Additional Advocate
General with Ms. Manasvita Nakwal
Ms. Manjeet Kaur, CGPC
Mr. Ashish Kumar with
Mr. Digvijay Singh
Mr. Manish Bhardwaj with
Mr. Shreyansh Jain on behalf of
Mr. Nalin G. Narain
Mr. C.S. Sinha, CGPC with
Mr. Mayank Kamwar
Mr. Shiv Kumar
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
REPORTABLE
Reserved on ::: 21/05/2025
Pronounced on ::: 28/05/2025
(Per Hon’ble Anand Sharma, J.)
1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in
above writ petitions, hence, they were heard analogously and are
being decided by this common order.
2. For the purpose of convenience and with the consent of
parties, facts narrated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16312/2024
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (18 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
are being taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication
of the dispute involved in these writ petitions.
3. Petitioners, who are working as Guest Faculty Instructors in
different Government ITI Colleges in different trades, have filed
the instant writ petitions to lay a challenge to the validity of the
Notification dated 01.09.2023 issued by the Department of
Personnel, Government of Rajasthan in order to amend the
Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service Rules, 1975 (for
short, ‘the Rules of 1975’). They have also challenged the
Advertisement No.09/2024 dated 11.03.2024 issued by the
Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, whereby applications were
invited from eligible persons for recruitment against the vacancies
of Junior Instructors in different trades.
4. It has been submitted in the writ petitions that post of Junior
Instructor in different trades have been created in the Department
of Skill Development, Employment and Entrepreneurship
(Vocational Education Training), Rajasthan. Recruitment and other
service conditions of the aforesaid post of Junior Instructor are
regulated by the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service
Rules, 1975.
5. It has been submitted by the petitioners that Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board, Jaipur, issued one Advertisement No. 09/2024
dated 11.03.2024 whereby the recruitment process for the post of
Junior Instructor in different trades was initiated and applications
were invited from eligible persons against as many as 1821
vacancies of Junior Instructors in different trades. Clause-6 of the
aforesaid Advertisement prescribes for eligibility and educational
qualifications as under:-
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (19 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
“(A) Academic:
Secondary with Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics as optional
subject under old scheme from a recognized Board or its
equivalent examination.
or
Secondary under 10+2 scheme from a recognized Board or its
equivalent examination.
(B) Technical :
B.Voc/Degree in the appropriate Branch of Engineering/
Technology or equivalent from AICTE /UGC recognized University
established by law in India and relevant National Craft Instructor
Certificate (NCIC) in any of the variants under DGT (For those
Trades where courses under CITS are available).
or
3 years Diploma in appropriate branch of Engineering /
Technology from any institute approved by AICTЕ and recognized
by State Board of Technical Education and relevant National Craft
Instructor Certificate (NCIC) in any of the variants under DGT
(For those Trades where courses under CITS are available).
or
3 years Diploma in appropriate branch of Engineering /
Technology awarded by UGC recognised University established by
law in India and relevant National Craft Instructor Certificate
(NCIC) in any of the variants under DGT (For those Trades where
courses under CITS are available).
or
relevant Advanced Diploma (Vocational) from DGT and National
Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC) in any of the variants under
DGT (For those Trades where courses under CITS are available).
or
National Trade Certificate in the relevant Trade and relevant
National Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC) in any of the variants
under DGT.
or
National Apprenticeship Certificate in the relevant Trade and
relevant National Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC) in any of the
variants under DGT.
(C) Experience (salaried):-
Experience in the trade concerned either in Industry or in a
Government Department on a Technical Post or on a teaching
post in a recognized teaching/Training Institution after acquiring
qualification of :-
B.VoC/Degree in Technology/Engineering -1 year
Diploma in Engineering/Technology/Advanced Diploma
(Vocational) from DGT -2 years’.
National Trade Certificate/National Apprentice-ship Certificate
-3 years”
6. Petitioners have come out with a case that they possess the
requisite academic qualification of Secondary or above, as well as
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (20 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
technical qualification of National Trade Certificate (NTC)/National
Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) in the relevant trades or
Degree/Diploma as required in the advertisement. It has been
submitted by the petitioners that as per unamended Rules, 1975,
the qualification required for Junior Instructor, for instance in
Engineering Trade and Maintenance Mechanic, are as under:-
Sr. Name of Post Method of Qualification & Experience for Post Minimum Remar
No. Recruitme Direct Recruitment from Qualificat k
nt with whic ion &
percentag h Experienc
e prom e for
otion promotio
is to n
be
made
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3(a) Junior 100% by (A) Academic: Secondary with – – –
Instructor direct Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics
(Engineering recruitment as optional subject under old
Trade and
scheme from any Central/State
Maintenance
Board of Secondary Education.
Mechanic)
or
Secondary under 10+2 scheme
from any Central/State Board of
Secondary Education.
(B) Technical: Diploma in
appropriate branch of
Engineering/Technology awarded
by any State Board of Technical
Education.
or
National Trade Certificate in the
Trade concerned to
Engineering/Technology Branch
ог
National Apprenticeship Certificate
in Trade concern to Engineering
/Technology Branch
(C) Experience: Experience in
the trade concerned either in
Industry or in a Government
Department on a Technical Post or
on a teaching post in a recognized
teaching Institution after acquiring
qualification of:-
Diploma in Engineering/
Technology-2years’.
National Trade Certificate/
National Apprenticeship Certificate
-3 years’
7. It has further been submitted by the petitioners that in
exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (21 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]Constitution of India, the State Government amended the
aforesaid Rules of 1975 vide Notification dated 01.09.2023 by way
of enacting the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service
(Second Amendment Rules, 2023), whreby the qualifications for
the post of Junior Instructor have been changed. For instance, the
amended qualifications of Junior Instructor (Engineering Trade and
Maintenance Mechanic), as per Notification dated 01.09.2023 are
being reproduced as under:-
Sr. Name of Post Method of Qualification & Experience for Post Minim Remark
No. Recruitment Direct Recruitment from um
with which Qualifi
percentage prom cation
otion &
is to Experi
be ence
made for
promo
tion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Junior 100% by (A)Academic: – – 1.For Trade
Instructor direct Secondary with Physics, of Mech.
(Engineering recruitment. Chemistry and Mathematics as Motor
Trade and out of which optional subject under old Vehicle/Mech
Maintenance (i)50% scheme from a recognized .Diesel/Mech
Mechanic) (L- reserved for Board or its equivalent . Tractor /
10) NTC/NAC examination Mech.
holders and or Agriculture
(ii)50% Secondary under 10+2 scheme Machinery/M
reserved for from a recognized Board of its ech. Driver
Degree/Diplo equivalent examination. cum
ma/Advance and Mechanic
d Diploma (B)Technical: should
holders. B.Voc./Degree in the posses a
appropriate Branch of license in
Engineering/Technology or Heavy
equivalent from AICTE/UGC Vehicle
recognized University Driving from
established by law in India and Transport
relevant National Craft Department.
Instructor Certificate(NCIC) in
any of the variants under DGT 2.Appropriat
(For those Trades where courses e Branch of
under CITS are available) Engineering/
or Technology
3 years Diploma in appropriate means the
branch of branches
Engineering/Technology from mentioned in
any institute approved by AICTE the latest
and recognized by State Board syllabus of
of Technical Education and the
relevant National Craft concerned
Instructor Certificate(NCIC) in trade
any of the variants under DGT published by
(For those Trades where courses DGT in force
under CITS are available) at the time
or of the
3 years Diploma in appropriate publication
branch of Engineering of
Technology awarded by UGC advertiseme
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (22 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
recognised university nt
established by law in India and
relevant National Craft 3.Person
Instructor Certificate (NCIC) in holding
any of the variants under DGT higher
(For those Trades where courses technical
under CITS are available) qualification
or in relevant
relevant Advanced diploma trade/
(Vocational) from DGT and branch shall
National Craft Instructor also be
Certificate(NCIC)in any of the eligible.
variants under DGT (For those
Trades where courses under 4. NCIC
CITS are available) issued under
or the scheme
National Trade Certificate in the RPL under
relevant Trade and relevant CITS is
National Craft Instructor equivalent to
Certificate(NCIC) in any of the regular one
variants under DGT year CITS
or
National Apprenticeship
Certificate in the relevant Trade
and relevant National Craft
Instructor Certificate (NCIC) in
any of the variants under DGT
8. Further, the petitioners have submitted that while comparing the
unamended Rules, 1975 with the amended Rules vide Notification dated
01.09.2023, it reveals that after amendment apart from academic and
technical qualification of Degree/Diploma or NTC/NAC, it has been
prescribed that candidates are required to possess relevant National
Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC)/Crafts Instructor Training Scheme
(CITS) certificate in any of the variant under Directorate General of
Training (DGT) for those trades where courses under CITS are
available.
9. Petitioners are aggrieved by insertion of such new requirement of
possessing NCIC/CITS certificates. As per petitioners such requirement
was not there under the unamended Rules and the amendment to the
extent of inserting the provisions with regard to possessing NCIC/CITS
certificates is ultra vires and repugnant to the guidelines issued by the
Director General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and
Entrepreneurship, Government of India.
10. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the National Council
for Vocational Training (NCVT) was established by the Government of
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (23 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
India, which recommended for prescription of CITS as essential
qualification for recruitment of Instructors in ITI Colleges.
11. Additionally, it has been submitted that Article 246 of the
Constitution of India provides for distribution of legislative powers
between the Central Government and State Government. It has been
pointed out that different subjects have been narrated in List-I, II and
III of the Schedule-VIII appended to the Constitution, which provides
for Union List, State List and Concurrent List respectively.
12. Petitioners have come out with a case that ‘Education including
Technical Education’ is a subject matter of ‘concurrent list’ prescribed
at entry No.25 and both Union as well as State Government can
legislate over the above subject, yet since the above entry 25 of
concurrent list has been made subject to provisions of entries 63, 64,
65 and 66 of List-I(Union List), therefore, in case Central Government
has enacted any law with regard to determination of standards in
institutions for higher and technical education, while excercising powers
under Union list, then such law laid down by the Central Government
would prevail over the State law.
13. It has further been submitted that as per Article 73 of the
Constitution of India, Executive Power of the Union shall extend to the
matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws.
14. Petitioners have categorically stated that in exercise of Powers
under Article 73 of Constitution, an Office Memorandum (for short,
‘O.M.’) dated 30.06.2023 has been issued by the Directorate General of
Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship for
mandating National Crafts Instructor Certificate (for short, ‘NCIC’)
under Crafts Instructor Training Scheme (for shrot, ‘CITS’) as an
essential qualification for recruitment of vocational Instructors in the
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (24 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
Government and private Industrial Training Institutes (for short, ‘ITI’).
Aforesaid O.M. dated 30.06.2023 lays down as under:-
“This is to revisit the instructions pertaining to mandating CITS as
an essential qualification for the vocational instructors in Industrial
Training Institutes (Government & Private).
2. The DGT vide its order no. MSDE(DGT)-19/01(01)/2019-CD
dated 09.1.2020, had interalia communicated consolidation of
changes in qualifications for recruitment of instructors of CTS and
CITS scheme. According to this, CITS was mandated as an essential
qualification for both Degree/Diploma as well as NTC/NAC
categories of Instructors.
3. Since then, a number of representations have been received
from State Governments/UTs and other stakeholders regarding
non-availability of CITS courses and CITS trained candidates in
several trades, specially for the New Age and Industry 4.0 related
trades.
4. Subsequently, a working group was formed to deliberate on this
matter and come up with actionable suggestions to implement the
mandatory CITS qualification for the Vocational Instructors while
ensuring availability of trainers across all trades.
5. The recommendations of the working group was examined in
DGT and it was noted that most of the issues raised were due to
non-availability of CITS courses/ CITS qualified trainers in many
trades. It was noted that as on date there are 152 CTS trades. Out
of these 152 CTS trades, there exist only 55 approved CITS
courses. These CITS courses have been mapped to 82 CTS trades
(Annexure 1). Therefore, the availability of CITS trained candidates
for all the CTS trades is not there.
6. Accordingly, after thorough examination of all aspects, the
following guidelines are being issued to States /UTs for recruitment
of Vocational Instructors along with the stipulations given below:
S. Category of Qualifications for Instructor
No. Instructor
a Trade ** B.Voc/Degree in appropriate branch of
Instructor Engineering from AICTE/UGC recognized
Engineering College/ university or equivalent
with one-year experience in the relevant field.
OR** 03 years Diploma in appropriate branch of
Engineering from AICTE/recognized board of
technical education with two years’ experience
in the relevant field.
OR
* NTC/NAC and CITS/NCIC passed in the
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (25 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]relevant trade with three years’ experience in
the relevant field.
Note: Out of two Instructors required for the
units of 2(1+1), one must have Degree/Diploma
and other must have NTC/NAC qualifications.
(i).
* In case where CITS qualified candidates are not available either
due to the nonexistence of CITS course or non-receipt of
application from any CITS qualified candidates or for any other
reason, candidates with relevant Technical Qualification may be
recruited.
** If any candidate is having CITS qualification in addition to the
Degree/Diploma in relevant stream, preference will be given to
such candidates over the Degree/Diploma candidates not having
CITS qualification.
(ii). Any selected candidate who has not done CITS or any other
form of pedagogy training shall undergo Pedagogy training within
one year from the date of appointment.
(iii). If a candidate (both Degree/Diploma and NTC/NAC) has been
selected without possessing CITS qualification for the trades which
are having CITS course, such candidates will have to undergo CITS
training (Regular or RPL) within three years from the date of
appointment.
(iv). For Candidate (both Degree/Diploma and NTC/NAC) selected
in the trade in which CITS qualification does not currently exist, the
selected candidates (both Degree/Diploma and NTC/NAC) will have
to undergo CITS training under RPL, whenever such CITS
qualifications are developed by DGT. ”
15. By narrating the aforesaid facts it has been submitted by the
petitioners that amendment incorporated vide Notification dated
01.09.2023 by the respondent-State Government is not in
consonance with the O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Central
Government, hence to the extent of inconsistency with the O.M.
dated 30.06.2023, the Notification dated 01.09.2023, is liable to
be declared as repugnant and ultra vires.
16. It has been contended by the petitioners that as per OM
dated 30.06.2023 NCIC certificate under CIT Scheme is not
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (26 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
mandatorily essential qualification at the time of recruitment on
the post of Instructors in ITI. Guidelines laid down in aforesaid
O.M. dated 30.06.2023 are flexible enough that even if the
candidates are not possessing NCIC certificate, even then they can
also be recruited as Junior Instructors with the relaxation that
they can acquire such certificate even after appointment within
the time prescribed in the condition no.6(iii) of the O.M. dated
30.06.2023.
17. It has been emphatically submitted that despite there being
clear guidelines given by the Central Government, the respondent-
State Government, while issuing Notification dated 01.09.2023,
has omitted the provision of relaxation recommended in O.M.
dated 30.06.2023 and instead thereof, possessing NCIC/CITS
certificate has been made a mandatory qualification even for
submitting application for recruitment. Therefore, the Notification
dated 01.09.2023 is in direct conflict with O.M. dated 30.06.2023
and being repugnant, is liable to be declared as ultra-vires.
18. Petitioners have also averred that since the Advertisement
dated 11.03.2024 has been issued pursuant to aforesaid ultra-
vires Notification dated 01.09.2023, hence, the same is also illegal
and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
19. Furthermore, it has also been contended by the petitioners
that assuming for a moment that requirement of possessing
NCIC/CITS certificate has rightly been prescribed vide Notification
dated 01.09.2023, even then looking to the fact that duration of
NCIC/CITS course is one year before issuing advertisement under
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (27 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
the amended Rules, there should have been a time gap of more
than one year, which could have granted minimum gestation
period to the candidates, who were not in possession of the
requisite NCIC/CITS certificate but instead of doing so,
immediately after incorporating amendment vide Notification
dated 01.09.2023, within a period of six months the impugned
advertisement has been issued by the respondent-State, which
has ultimately deprived the petitioners of having sufficient time
even to obtain the requisite certificate, hence, the Advertisement
dated 11.03.2024, since issued in hot-haste, is arbitrary and
illegal.
20. In addition to above, it has also been submitted by the
petitioners that aforesaid O.M. dated 30.06.2023 also provides for
undergoing CITS training under RPL (Recognition of Prior
Learning), which is a process that formally recognizes and
validates the knowledge, skills and competence acquired through
learning experience. Such training under RPL can be done even by
in service candidates, however, despite such provision and request
made by the petitioners, permission has not been granted by the
State respondents to undergo such training through RPL, where
such certificate could have been acquired only within a period of
three months. Thus, the action of the respondents is totally
unreasonable and unjustified.
21. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the petitioners prayed for
allowing the writ petitions and by quashing the Notification dated
01.09.2023 to the extent of it being repugnant to the O.M. dated
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (28 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
30.06.2023, the State-respondents may be directed to treat the
petitioners eligible and to appoint them on the post of Junior
Instructors in their respective Trades.
22. In order to oppose the writ petition, reply has been filed by
the State Government, which has also been supported by Union of
India as well as by Rajasthan Staff Selection Board.
23. It has been contended on behalf of respondents that the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners are totally misconceived and
misdirected. Impugned Notification dated 01.09.2023 and
Advertisement dated 11.03.2024 issued pursuant thereto, are
strictly in consonance with the O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by
the DGT, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship.
24. It has been submitted that the State Government is mindful
of the guidelines issued by the Central Government in exercise of
Article 73 of the Constitution of India in respect of subject matter
falling within the ambit of entry 66 of List I schedule VII appended
to the Constitution. It has further been submitted that Notification
dated 01.09.2023 has although been issued in exercise of powers
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in respect of a
subject falling within the entry 25 of the List III, yet such
notification is nowhere in conflict with the O.M. dated 30.06.2023,
hence, no question of repugnancy arises in the matter and there is
no illegality, infirmity and unconstitutionally in Notification dated
01.09.2023.
25. It has been contended on behalf of the State Government
that the aforesaid Notification dated 01.09.2023 does not tend to
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (29 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
lower down the standard of qualification and training set by the
Central Government vide O.M. dated 30.06.2023, nor does it
prescribe any qualification inferior or lower to the qualification
prescribed by the Central Government, hence, by no stretch of
imagination Notification dated 01.09.2023 can be said to be
repugnant to the Central Government’s O.M. dated 30.06.2023.
26. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the State
Government that while incorporating amendment vide Notification
dated 01.09.2023 instead of lowering down the benchmark of
standard qua qualification laid down by the Central Government,
quite evidently the State Government has raised it above the said
benchmark hence, the Notification dated 01.09.2023 cannot be
said to be against the intent and spirit of the Central Government
in maintaining the standard of the qualifications to be held by the
Junior Instructors in ITI Colleges.
27. It has been pointed out by the State Government that even
the O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Central Government
nowhere exempts the requirement of possessing NCIC/CITS
certificate. It has been indicated that as per O.M. dated
30.06.2023 even the candidates possessing Degree/Diploma in
Engineering are required to possess such certificate for holding the
post of Junior Instructor.
28. It has been submitted that the job of Junior Instructors is to
impart education and training to the students in ITI Colleges.
Possessing Degree/Diploma in Engineering or NTC/NAC
certification may provide proof of acquiring knowledge of the
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (30 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
respective trade, but educating the students even in the same
trade requires altogether different skills and technique than
holding a degree/Diploma/NTC/NAC, hence, the Ministry of Skill
Development, Government of India has mandated for CITS
training and possessing NCIC certificates for the post of Junior
Instructors. Such mandate of the Central Government has been
duly followed by the State Government while incorporating
amended qualifications vide Notification dated 01.09.2023.
29. It has also been submitted on behalf of the State
Government that the requirement of prescription of CITS for
recruitment of Instructors in ITI as a necessary qualification, was
initially prescribed by the National Council for Vocational Training
(NCVT) through its recommendations, which were duly accepted
by the Central Government vide its letter dated 27.05.2014 and
07.01.2016. Hence, it cannot be said by the petitioners that vide
O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by DGT, first time any
recommendation was made with regard to possessing CITS
Training for the post of Instructors.
30. By referring judgment of this Court in the case of Rajveer
Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (DBCWP No.
12145/2016) decided on 17.01.2017, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, it
has been submitted that earlier one Advertisement dated
16.09.2016 was issued by the State Government for recruitment
on the post of ITI Instructors without having requirement of
possessing NCIC/CITS certificates. Such Advertisement was
challenged before this Court with the contention; that the
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (31 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
guidelines issued by the NCVT and duly accepted by the Central
Government would amount to exercise of Executive Power by the
Union under Article 73 of the Constitution of India and in view of
entry 65 of List-III of the Constitution, such guidelines are
required to be followed mandatorily by the State Government,
however, without properly amending the Rules and without
requiring the necessity of possessing NCIC/CITS certificates, the
State initiated process of recruitment. On such challenge made in
the aforesaid writ petition No. 12145/2016, this Court held that
the Administrative Power of Union under Article 73 extends to
matters with respect to which parliament has power to make laws
and in non-existence of any legislation by parliament over any
subject, instructions/guidelines can be issued by the Central
Government. While making such observations, it was held that
once the guidelines have been issued by Central Government then
the State is bound to follow the same in order to maintain the
teaching standard in the educational institutions and accordingly
the State Government was directed to issue fresh Advertisement
in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Central
Government and NCVT.
31. It would be relevant to refer following Paras of the aforesaid
judgments in the case of Rajveer Singh (supra):-
“1. The petitioners have challenged validity of advertisement dated
16/09/2016 issued by Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Staff
Service Recruitment Board, Jaipur pertaining to recruitment of I.T.I.
Instructors allegedly issued in violation of prescribed standards as
enunciated by National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) under
Directorate General of Training (DGT), Ministryof Skill Development
& Enterpreneurship because of scaling down the necessary
qualification.
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (32 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
9. The determination of standards in “technical education”, which
includes teachers’ qualification, fall under Entry 66 in List I in the
exclusive domain of the Union, the education including technical
education falls within Entry 25 of List III, So long as Central
Government had not issued any direction accepting
recommendations of the NCVT, it was open to the State
Government to prescribe qualification for appointment in Industrial
Training Institutes, which are technical institutions. The executive
order issued under Article 73, in respect of matters on which
parliament has exclusive power to make laws, have the same force
as laws made by Parliament. The proviso to Clause (1) of Article 73
shall not, save as expressly provided in the Constitution, or in any
law made by parliament, extend in any state to matters with
respect to which the Legislature of the State has also power to
make laws. The qualifications of teachers of Technical Education
are essentially covered within coordination and determination of
standards in Institutions and is as such, covered by entry 66 of List
I (union list), and not by entry 25 of List III(concurrent list) and the
“State Government” explicitly knowing the position, carried out
directions of the Central Government by accepting
recommendations of NCVT.
11. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view
that determination of standards in technical institution pertaining to
Entry 66 List I of Schedule VII will include laying down the
standards for teaching and teaching qualifications, the powers of
Central Government, as such under Article 246 to legislate and to
issue executive orders on the subject are valid and unimpeachable.
The Administrative Power of the Union under Article 73
extends to matters with respect to which parliament has power to
make laws and in non-existence of legislation by parliament, the
State may in its executive power deal with matters as enumerated
in concurrent list. The exercise of power, however, is subject to
provisions of the Constitution. Article 309 provides for regulating the
recruitment in conditions of service, for public services on the posts
in connection with the affairs of the union or any of the state, until
provision in that behalf are made by the legislation and the
executive order issued under Article 73, in respect of which,
Parliament has got exclusive power to make laws being the same
once as laws made by Parliament, so once the guidelines
enumerated by the Central Government and subsequently accepted
and accorded to by the State regarding “technical education service”
shall not be scaled down, overshadowed or diminished.
The teaching standards in all the educational institutions are
required to be utmost superior for the betterment of the individuals
and State to achieve excellence in every field.
12. Several aspirants possessing required, similar and superior
kind of teaching qualification, would gain legitimate expectation for
their consideration for appointment, on the teaching posts and in
case, the State Government allows the persons having lower
qualification to hold the posts, the rights of such aspirants having
higher and better teaching qualifications, will be marred and
violated, which will obviously be unconstitutional being
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (33 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
discriminatory and violative to their constitutional rights and
concept of quality.
The writ petition, challenging the questioned advertisement
dated 16/09/2016, is as such, liable to be allowed and the
advertisement dated 16/09/2016 relating thereto is consequently
quashed.
The respondent State Government is directed to issue fresh
advertisement in consonance with the Central Government and
NCVT Guidelines. It is also made clear that the aspirants, who were
within the age limit on the last date of impugned/questioned
advertisement dated 16/09/2016 and who have attained eligibility
in the meanwhile, shall also be competent and eligible to apply in
coming/prospective recruitment advertisement.
The writ petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.”
32. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State
would submit that in view of the aforesaid judgment of Rajveer
Singh (supra) as well as guidelines revised by the Central
Government vide O.M. dated 30.06.2023, the State Government
was under an obligation to amend the recruitment Rules suitably,
so as to maintain the standards set by the guidelines framed by
the Central Government. Hence, under these circumstances, the
Notification dated 01.09.2023 was issued by the respondent-State
whereby existing Schedule appended to the Rules of 1975, was
substituted and so far as post of Junior Instructor in different
trades is concerned, in addition to academic and technical
qualification earlier existing in the unamended Schedule, it was
prescribed that the aspirants for the aforesaid posts are required
to possess relevant National Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC) in
any of the variants under DGT. However, learned AAG clarifies
that such additional qualification of NCIC/CITS is only in respect of
those trades where courses under CITS are available.
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (34 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
33. Learned AAG also submits that the aforesaid Notification
dated 01.09.2023, in no manner whatsoever, intends to scale
down the standard of qualification set by the Central Government
and he emphasized that the Notification dated 01.09.2023 is
strictly in consonance with DGT Notification dated 30.06.2023.
34. Learned AAG submitted that the petitioners are mis-
interpreting and misconstruing the O.M. dated 30.06.2023 and
Notification dated 01.09.2023. O.M. dated 30.06.2023 grants
relaxation, if any, only in those cases, where there is non-
availability of CITS courses and CITS trained candidates are not
available in any of such trade. As such, the Schedule sought to be
substituted vide Notification dated 01.09.2023, while prescribing
the mandatory requirement of possessing NCIC/CITS certificates,
has duly taken care of the fact that such requirement is
mandatory only for those trades where courses under CITS are
available. Hence, as per the State Government, there is no
repugnancy between the aforesaid OM dated 30.06.2023 and
Notification dated 01.09.2023.
35. Learned AAG further submits that the Advertisment dated
11.03.2024 is also strictly in compliance with the guidelines of
Central Government as well as amended Schedule vide
Notification dated 01.09.2023.
36. It has been submitted that while framing the Rules, the
infrastructure with regard to imparting CITS courses in the State
as well as availability of sufficient number of candidates
possessing NCIC/CITS certificate has also been taken care of. It
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (35 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
has also been submitted that since there are sufficient number of
candidates in the State of Rajasthan, who are possessing the
aforesaid NCIC/CITS certificate, therefore, pursuant to aforesaid
Advertisement dated 11.03.2024, around 13 times to the number
of posts advertised, the respondents have received applications
from CITS trained candidates. Details with regard to Institutes of
Training Centres providing CITS Training, number of candidates
who have passed such courses as well as details of applications
received from CITS trained candidates pursuant to impugned
Notification have also been given in the reply to the writ petitions.
Relevant part of the reply to writ petition is being reproduced as
under :-
“The CITS programme provides comprehensive training both in
Skills and Training Methodology to the candidates who have
applied to become instructors / trainers in ITI’s. Brief relevant
facts about CITS –
There are 33 Central Institutes which are imparting CITS
Courses of which two Central Government Institutes are
NSTI, Jodhpur and NSTI (W), Jaipur in SAJJAN KUMAR
MEНТА OATH COMM SSIONER RAJASTHAN HIGH/COURT
BENCH JAIPUR 361 the State of Rajasthan. Besides this
there are 122 Institutes Of Training Of Trainers(ITOT’s) in
the Country out of which 31 are institutes controlled and
managed by Govt. of Rajasthan. The Director General of
Training (DGT) also maintains a CITS Dashboard providing
details of number of candidates registered in a particular
year, number of candidates who appeared in the
examination and total number of passed candidates in the
given session. Yearwise detail from Session 15-16 till
Session 2022-23 are submitted here as under:-
Session Total Passed
August 2015-16 4664
February 2016-17 499
August 2016-17 4502
August 2017-18 5766
August 2018-19 7966
August 2019-20 8391
August 2020-21 9185
August 2021-22 8142
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (36 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
August 2022-23 8138
Total 57253
It is further submitted that the figures for the Session
2023-24 are not available on the website of the DGT,
therefore same have not been incorporated, however
considering previous five years even on average 8000
candidates are considered in the Session 2023-24
then almost 6500 candidates are there possessing
CITS certificates. In furtherance of the above it is also
submitted that there are 33 Government Institutes for
training of trainers (ITOTs) in the State of Rajasthan
in Academic Session 2022-23, 1216 candidates have
passed, in the Academic Session 2023-24, 1255
candidates have passed the examination.
As far as the present selection process is concerned,
in total 16 CITS trades have been advertised out of
which except the trade of Solar Technician which is at
Serial No. 10, candidates with CITS certificates who
have applied in the recruitment process initiated by
RSSB vide Advertisement No. 08/2024 and 09/2024
of which details are submitted here as under:-
**foHkkx }kjk vf/kuLFk p;u cksMZ ds ek/;e ls tkjh foKkiu la[;k
08@2024 ,oa 09@2024 esa vkosnu fd, x, vH;fFkZ;ksa ,oa mlesa
lhvkbZVh,l ;ksX;rk/kkjh vH;fFkZ;ksa dks O;olk;okj fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gS%&
dzae O;olk;@fo”k; foKkfir in dqy lhvkbZVh,l
la[;k vkosnd ;ksX;rk/kkjh
vkosnd
1. Computer Operator and 217 2048 2048
Programming Assistant
2. Cosmetology 43 448 448
3. Draftsman Civil 38 608 608
4. Eclectrician 348 4739 4739
5. Electronics Mechanic 76 827 827
6. Information and Communication 47 550 550
Technolgy System Maintenance
7. Mechanical Diesel 199 1015 1015
8. Mechanical Motor Vehicle 71 640 640
9. Plumber 58 905 905
10. Refrigeration and Air Conditioner 134 1112 1112
Technician
11. Sewing Technolgy 40 507 507
12. Solar Technician Electrical 36 2330 1490
13. Turner 42 927 927
14. Welder 139 1628 1628
15. Wireman 90 2487 2487
16. Fitter 243 3389 3389
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (37 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
17. Computer Lab/I.T. Lab 202 1589 1589
18. Employability Skills 158 1203 0
19. Engineering Drawing 100 2940 2940
20. Workshop Calculation adn 219 5350 5350
Science
Total 2500 35242 33100From the above it is clear that on an average number of
applications received from the CITS Trained Candidates is 13
times to the number of posts advertised which clearly shows
that there is no requirement for the State Government to relax
the mandatory qualification of CITS certificate in the
recruitment initiated vide advertisement dated 11.03.2024.”
37. Details given hereinabove would reveal that except trade of
‘Solar Technician’, in all other trades, more than sufficient number
of applicants, possessing CITS certificate, have applied pursuant
to the Advertisement.
38. While referring Annexure R/2/2 issued by the Department of
Skill, Employment and Entrepreneurship, Jodhpur, it has been
pointed out by learned AAG that since sufficient number of
applications from CITS trained candidates were not received,
therefore, in accordance with Notification dated 01.09.2023 and
DGT O.M. dated 30.06.2023, relaxation has been granted for the
aforesaid trade of ‘Solar Technician’ and the candidates relating to
aforesaid trades have been exempted from possessing CITS/NCIC
certificates.
39. While pointing out the aforesaid details, learned AAG would
submit that the State is well considerate that in case, in a
particular trade CITS certificate holders are not available for any
reason whatsoever then while making recruitment, who are the
subject trade, relaxation shall be granted and the requirement of
possessing CITS certificate would be exempted in the light of O.M.
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (38 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
dated 30.06.2023. However, such exemption would not be
permanent and even after selection/appointment, the selected
candidate shall be required to undergo such training soon after
availability of such course in the State. Thus, action of the State
cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to the guidelines issued
vide O.M. dated 30.06.2023.
40. Learned AAG has also submitted that scope of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of
prescription of qualification is very very limited and in the light of
facts of the instant case, no interference is called for in the instant
writ petition. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the writ petition.
41. Learned AAG relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of
M.P. & Ors. reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120, State of T.N. and
Anr. Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Ors. reported in (2004) 4
SCC 513, Visveswaraiah Technological Universities & Ors.
Vs. Krishnendu Halder & Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 606,
Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Justice Tendolkar reported in 1958
SCC OnLine SC 6, Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India reported
in (2013) 1 SCC 745, Chief Manager Punjab National Bank &
Anr. Vs. Anit Kumar Das reported in (2021) 12 SCC 80,
Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. Vs. Sheik Imtiaz Ahmad and
ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 and judgment delivered by
this Court in the case of Bhikam Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. (D.B.C.W.P. No. 737/2023).
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (39 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
42. We have considered the record of the writ petitions and
carefully heard the arguments raised at bar by both the sides.
43. Neat question of law involved in the above writ petitions for
consideration of this Court is as to whether Notification dated
01.09.2023 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers
under Proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution while invoking entry
No.26 of List III, can be said to be ultra-vires or repugnant to O.M.
dated 30.06.2023 issued by Directorate General of Training,
Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Government
of Rajasthan, issued in exercise of powers under Article 73 of the
Constitution of India; or not?
44. It is a settled proposition of law that onus to prove that the
State law is repugnant to the Central law would be on the person
attacking the validity of State law. Needless to state that
repugnancy has to be in fact and not based upon mere
possibilities.
45. We find that as per entry 25 of concurrent List (List III), the
State Government can also frame laws relating to education
including technical education, however, such power is subject to
provisions of entry 63 to 66 of List-I (General List). Thus, it is
clear that the State Government is well competent to frame laws
with regard to technical education in the State, hence, the
Notification dated 01.09.2023 cannot be said to be ultra vires
Constitution of India as there is no question of lack of competence
on the part of the State in view of entry 25 of List III.
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (40 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
46. While examining entry 66 of the List-I of Schedule VII
appended to the Constitution of India, we are satisfied that the
Central Government is also competent to enact laws with regard
to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for
higher education and technical institutions.
47. On a conjoint reading of the entry 66 of List I and entry 25
of List III, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that although
the State has a wide legislative field to cover under entry 25 of
List III, however, the same is subject to entry 63 to 66 of List I.
Thus, it can be said that any State legislation and Central
legislation, if touching the same subject covering in the aforesaid
different entries of concurrent list and union list, there cannot be
any inconsistency between such laws and in case there is any
conflict between the Central Law and the State law, to the extent
of such conflict, the State law can be said to be repugnant and
void. However, in case, the State legislation does not entrench
upon the legislative field set apart by entry 66 of List I, the State
law cannot be invalidated.
48. It is also a settled proposition of law that 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.
49. On analysis of aforesaid constitutional provisions, we find
that State law may be repugnant in following ways:-
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (41 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
(i) when there is a direct conflict betweens the Central Law and
State Law
(ii) where cannot be obeyed without disobeying the other.
50. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer that in the case
of Govt. Of A.P. and Anr. Vs. J.B. Educational Society and
Anr. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 212, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as under:-
“15. This Court in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India para 23, held
thus:
“24. It is well settled that the presumption is always in
favour of the constitutionality of a Statute and the onus lies
on the person assailing the Act to prove that it is
unconstitutional Prima facie, there does not appear to us to
be any inconsistency between the State Act and the Central
Acts. Before any repugnancy can arise, the following
conditions must be satisfied:
1. That there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the
Central Act and the State Act.
2. That such and inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.
3. That the inconsistency between the provisions of the two
Acts is of such a nature as to bring the two Acts into direct
collision with each other and a situation is reached where it
is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other.”
This Court also referred to the earlier decisions including
Deep Chand v. State of U.P., wherein various tests to
ascertain the question of repugnancy between the two
statutes were indicated and, inter alia, it was held that
repugnancy between two statutes may be ascertained by
considering, whether Parliament intended to lay down an
exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing
the Act of the State Legislature. Reference was made to
Megh Rai v. Allah Rakhia, AIR 1942 FC 27, wherein it was
observed that if the paramount legislation does not purport
to be exhaustive or unqualified, there is no inconsistency and
it cannot be said that any qualification or restriction
introduced by another law is -repugnant to the provision in
the main or paramount law. This court also referred to T.S.
Baliah v. T.S. Rangacharim wherein it was, inter alia,
observed that before coming to the conclusion that there is a
repeal by implication, the court must be satisfied that the
two enactments are so inconsistent that it becomes
impossible for them to stand together.”
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (42 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
51. In the light of the aforesaid principles, we have also
examined O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Central
Government as well as Notification dated 01.09.2023. It is a
matter of record that there is no Central Act enacted by the
Parliament laying down any qualification for the post of Instructor
in ITI Institutions. In absence of any Central Act, in exercise of
powers under Article 73 of the Constitution of India, the Ministry
of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship has issued O.M. dated
30.06.2023 mandating prescription of qualification for the post of
Instructor in ITI Institutions.
52. Fair reading of aforesaid O.M. dated 30.06.2023 would also
reveal that the instructions issued by the O.M. dated 30.06.2023
are not the original guidelines. The necessity to issue O.M. dated
30.06.2023 is apparent from bare perusal of Office Memorandum
itself, which states that the instructions pertaining to mandating
CITS as an essential qualification for the vocational Instructor in
ITI were already there, however, on number of representations
received from the State Government/UTs and other stakeholders,
such earlier existing instructions were revisited. It would also
reveal by O.M. dated 30.06.2023 that representations were
submitted by such State Government/UTs, where there was non-
availability of CITS courses and CITS trained candidates in several
trades.
53. It would also come out from O.M. dated 30.06.2023 that on
receiving representations, a working group was formed by the
Central Government to deliberate on the issue and to provide
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (43 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
actionable suggesstions so as to implement the mandatory CITS
qualification while ensuring availability of training across of Trades.
It is also apparent that recommendations of experts were received
by DGT and it was found that such issue has arisen only on
account of non-availability of CITS courses/CITS trainings in many
trades. Figures have been given that there are total 152 CTS
trades, out of which CITS courses have been approved only for 55
CTS trades. In order to ensure availability of trainers across of the
trades, after examining the curriculum of difference trades,
mapping has been done by the Central Government whereby
aforesaid 55 approved CITS courses have been mapped to 82 CTS
trades. After such mapping, it has been observed that it cannot be
said that CITS trained candidates for all the CTS trades Centres
are not there.
54. In clause 6 of O.M. dated 30.06.2023, it has been made
clear that possessing CITS/NCIC certificate is mandatory for all
the candidates aspiring for the post of Inspector in different
trades. Clause 6(i) takes care of the situation where CITS qualified
candidates are not available either due to the non-existence of
CITS course or non-receipt of sufficient number of application
from any CITS qualified candidates, and therefore, it has been
recommended that in the aforesaid eventualities candidates with
relevant Technical Qualification may be recruited without requiring
them possession of CITS qualification at the time of recruitment.
Even such qualification has been mandated for the candidates
having Degree/Diploma in relevant stream; and it has been made
clear that preference shall be given to such candidates having
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (44 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
CITS certificate in addition to Degree/Diploma over the candidates
possessing simple Degree/Diploma.
55. Sub-clause (ii) and (iii) of Clause 6 of O.M. dated
30.06.2023, would further make it clear that mere selection of the
candidate, not possessing CITS qualification at the time of
recruitment on account of non-availability of the course/eligible
candidates, would not exempt possession of such qualification for
all times to come. It has been rather mandated that even after
selection the candidates are required to possess CITS qualification
within the period prescribed in aforesaid clauses either in regular
manner or through RPL.
56. Thus, after meticulous analysis of O.M. dated 30.06.2023, it
would come out that possessing NCIC/CITS certificate is an
essential qualification for recruitment on the post of Instructor in
ITI. The relaxation to possess such qualification even after
selection is also not applicable in all the cases and a rider has
been put that such relaxation of possessing qualification during
service can be given only in the cases where CITS courses and
CITS trained candidates in a particular trade are not available.
57. In the light of above, we have scanned the impugned
Notification dated 01.09.2023 issued by the respondent-State in
exercise of its Rule making power under proviso under Article 309
of the Constitution of India, whereby the existing Schedule
appended to Rules of 1975 was substituted and by way of such
substitution, for recruitment on the post of Junior Instructor in
different trades, apart from academic and technical qualifications
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (45 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
earlier existed in the Rules of 1975, requirement of possessing
relevant NCIC/CITS certificate in any of the variants under DGT
has been inserted. However, while making such insertion, it has
been clarified that such requirement of possessing NCIC/CITS
certificate is only for those trades where courses under CITS are
available.
58. Thus, it can be safely said that bare reading of the provisions
of amended Schedule vide Notofication dated 01.09.2023 would
make it clear that prescribing new requirement of possessing of
NCIC/CITS certificate is not mandatory in all the cases and an
exception has been carved out for the contingencies where
courses under CITS are not available and in such contingeny such
requirement shall stand exempted.
59. Now, if we compare the O.M. dated 30.06.2023 with
Notification dated 01.09.2023, no apparent and manifest
repugnance comes out between the provisions of aforesaid
documents. As stated hereinabove, both the Central as well as
State provisions make it incumbent and mandatory for a candidate
applying against the post of ITC Instructor, to possess the
NCIC/CITS certificate. Both the aforesaid O.M. dated 30.06.2023
also make it clear that such requirement is essential and
necessary only for the trades where courses under CITS are
available. Thus, we find no inconsistency or conflict of any kind
whatsoever between O.M. dated 30.06.2023 and 01.09.2023.
Hence, by no stretch of imagination, Notification dated 01.09.2023
can be said to be repugnant to O.M. dated 30.06.2023. Plea raised
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (46 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
by the petitioner in this regard is totally baseless, unfounded and
misconceived; and is hereby rejected.
60. We have examined the aforesaid O.M. dated 30.06.2023 and
Notification from one another angle that as to whether the
Notification dated 01.09.2023 laying amendment in the Schedule
tends to scale down the standard set by the guidelines issued by
the Central Government or not. Assuming for a moment, in case,
a conclusion can be drawn that the State Notification dated
01.09.2023 does not, in any manner, relax the qualification of
possessing NCIC/CTIS certificate ignoring that such relaxation can
be granted as per O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Central
Government, even then such conclusion in no manner would lead
to a situation where the standard set by the Central Government
has been intended to be lowered down by the State Government.
61. Admittedly, qualification prescribed vide Notification dated
01.09.2023 is nowhere inferior or lower to the qualification
prescribed in DGT O.M. dated 30.06.2023. Thus, we find that the
stand taken by the State Government is absolutely correct and
justified that the State Government has no intention to prescribe
any scaled down or inferior qualification than the qualification
prescribed by the Central Government. Rather the standard set by
the State Government in amended Rules are higher than those
specified in Central Guidelines.
62. In the light of above also, it can safely be held that the
Notification dated 01.09.2023 is not overreaching the O.M. dated
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (47 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
30.06.2023 in order to diminish the benchmark of standard set by
the Central Government.
63. In the case of Preeti Srivastava (supra) the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed in the following manner:-
“35. The legislative competence of the Parliament and the
legislatures of the States to make laws under Article 246 is
regulated by the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution. In the VIIth
Schedule as originally in force. Entry 11 of List-II gave to the
States an exclusive power to legislate on “education including
universities subject to the provisions of retries 63, 64, 65 and 66
of List-I and Entry 25 of List-III”.
Entry 11 of List-II was deleted and Entry 25 of List-III was
amended with effect from 3-1-1976 as a result of the Constitution
42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The present Entry 25 in the
Concurrent List is as follows:
“25. Education, including technical education, medical
education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries
63, 64, 65 and 66 list-I: vocational and technical training of
labour.”
Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List-I. Entry 66 of
List-I is as follows:
“66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in
institutions for higher education or research and scientific and
technical institutions. Both the Union as well as the States
have the power to legislate on education including medical
education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List-I which deals
with laying down standards in institutions for higher education
or research and scientific and technical institutions as also co-
ordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right
to control education including medical education so long as
the field is not occupied by any Union Legislation. Secondly,
the State cannot, while controlling education in the State,
impinge on standards in intuitions for higher education.
Because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union
Government. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for
admission to the institutions for higher education including
higher medical education, the State cannot adversely affect
the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66
of List-I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject
it is also necessary to remember that from 1977 education
including, inter alia, medical and university education, is now
in the Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate on
admission criteria also. If it does so, the State will not be able
to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254.
36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission
have no connection with the standard of education, or that the
rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List-III.
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (48 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of
education. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are
consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of
education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under
Entry 66 of List-I. For example, a State may, for admission to the
post-graduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition
to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List-I. This would be
consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the
higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid
down can, and do have an adverse affect on the standards of
education in the institutes of higher education…………
39. The respondents have emphasised the observation that
admission has to be made by those who are in control of the
colleges. But, the question is on what basis? Admissions must be
made on a basis which is consistent with the standards laid own
by a statute or regulation framed by the Central Government in
the exercise of its powers under Entry 66, List-I. At times, in
some of the judgments, the words “eligibility” and “qualification”
have been used interchangeably, and in some cases a distinction
has been made between’ the two words (“eligibility” connoting
the minimum criteria for selection that may be laid down by the
University Act or any Central Statue, while “qualifications”
connoting the additional norms laid down by the colleges or by
the State. In every case the minimum standards as laid down by
the Central Statute or under it, have to be complied with by the
State while making admissions. It may, in addition, lay down
other additional norms for admission or regulate admissions in
the exercise of its powers under Entry 25, List-III in a manner
not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the
criteria so laid down.
………………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. But the action of the State is valid because it does not
adversely impinge on the standards prescribed by the appropriate
authority………..”
64. Similarly, in the case of State of T.N. and Anr. (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“9. Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read
together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an
exclusivity in the matter of admission but if certain prescription
of standards have been made pursuant to Entry 66 of List I, then
those standards will prevail over the standards fixed by the State
in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they
adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India or
any other authority functioning under it. therefore, what is to be
seen in the present case is whether the prescription of the
standards made by the State Government is in any way adverse
to, or lower than, the standards fixed by the AICTE, It is no(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (49 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]doubt true that the AICTE prescribed two modes of admission –
One is merely dependent on the qualifying examination and the
other dependent upon the marks obtained at the Common
Entrance Test. The appellant in the present case prescribed the
qualification of having secured certain percentage of marks in the
related subjects which is higher than the minimum in the
qualifying examination in order to be eligible for admission. If
higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government than
what had been prescribed by the AICTE, can it be said that it is
in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE or
reduces the standard fixed by it? In our opinion, it does not. On
the other hand, if we proceed on the basis that the norms fixed
by the AICTE would allow admission only on the basis of the
marks obtained in the qualifying examination the additional test
made applicable is the common entrance test by the State
Government. If we proceed to take the standard fixed by the
AICTE to be the common entrance test then the prescription
made by the State Government of having obtained certain marks
higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order
to be eligible to participate in the common entrance test is in
addition to the common entrance test. In either event, the
streams proposed by the AICTE are not belittled in any manner.
The manner in which the High Court has proceeded is that what
has been prescribed by the AICTE is inexorable and that that
minimum alone should be taken into consideration and no other
standard could be fixed even the higher as stated by this Court in
Dr. Preeti Srivastava‘s case. It is no doubt true as noticed by this
Court in Adhiyaman’s case that there may be situations when a
large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher
standards fixed. The standards fixed should always be realistic
which are attainable and are within the reach of the candidates.
It cannot be said that the prescriptions by the State Government
in addition to those of AICTE in the present case are such which
are not attainable or which are not within the reach of the
candidates who seek admission for engineering colleges. It is not
very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed as
minimum of 60% downwards, but definitely higher than the
mere pass marks. Excellence in higher education is always
insisted upon by series of decisions of this Court including Dr.
Preeti Srivastava‘s case. If higher minimum marks have been
prescribed, it would certainly add to the excellence in the matter
of admission of the students in higher education.
10. Argument advanced on behalf of the respondents is that the
purpose of fixing norms by the AICTE is to ensure uniformity with
extended access of educational opportunity and such norms
should not be tinkered with by the State in any manner. We are
afraid, this argument ignores the view taken by this Court in
several decisions including Dr. Preeti Srivastava‘s case that the
State can always fix a further qualification or additional
qualification to what has been prescribed by the AICTE and that
proposition is indisputable. The mere fact that there are
vacancies in the colleges would not be a matter, which would go
into the question of fixing the standard of education. therefore, it
is difficult to subscribe to the view that once they are qualified(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (50 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]under the criteria fixed by the AICTE they should be admitted
even if they fall short of the criteria prescribed by the State. The
scope of the relative entries in the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution have to be understood in the manner as stated in
the Dr. Preeti Srivastava‘s case and, therefore, we need not
further elaborate in this case or consider arguments to the
contrary such as application of occupied theory no power could
be exercised under Entry 25 of List III as they would not arise for
consideration.”
65. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association
and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in
(2021) 6 SCC 568 and in the case of Sudhir N. Vs. State of
Kerala reported in (2015) 6 SCC 685.
66. The State Government has succeeded by way of placing the
sufficient data of record to show that sufficient number of eligible
candidates are already there in respect of all the trades, for which
Advertisement has been issued, except for the trade of ‘Solar
Technician’, therefore, either in view of the Notification dated
01.09.2023 or O.M. dated 30.06.2023, there was any requirement
whatsoever to relax the qualification of possessing NCIC/CITS
certificate for such State. So far as trade of ‘Solar Technician’, it
has been stated in the reply that necessary relaxation has already
been given.
67. 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 qua possessing NCIC/CITS certificate,
even for the trades where CITS courses are not available, would
not invalidate the Notification dated 01.09.2023 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
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (51 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
Rules are silent. More so, learned AAG, on instructions, on behalf
of the State, has undertaken that the State would also grant
relaxation, whenever required, to the candidates where CITS
courses are not available for a particular trade or eligible
candidates are not otherwise available.
68. Thus, it is abundantly clear that where there are two
different Rules/guidelines prescribed by the State Government and
the Central Government in respect of same field governing the
standard of education in the Technical institutions. It is trite law
that the State cannot allow any candidate to be appointed for
imparting education in such institutions, who does not possess the
minimum eligibility or qualification prescribed by the Central
Government. However, in order to maintain the higher standard of
the institutions, the State Government is well within its rights to
prescribe additional or higher qualification/eligibility criteria. While
doing so, even if despite having sufficient number of applicants
possessing such higher qualification/eligibility, in case any of the
post remains vacant after completion of selection process, even
then the Rules prescribing higher standard of qualification or
eligibility criteria laid down by the State Government cannot be
held arbitrary; and the candidates, who do not possess such
additional/higher qualification, cannot claim that they should be
given appointment against the vacancies remained unfilled on
account of non-selection of the candidates possessing such
additional or higher qualification prescribed by the State
Government.
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (52 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
69. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer judgment of
Visveswaraiah Technological Universities & Ors. (supra) in
which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“4. Consequently the University Regulations governing BE/B.
Tech degree courses were amended and the amended
Regulations are extracted below:
O.B.2.1 Admission to first year, first semester bachelor
degree in Engineering/Technology shall be open for the
candidates who have passed the second year Pre-University
or XII Standard or equivalent examination recognized by the
University.
O.B.2.2 In addition to O.B. 2.1, the candidate shall have
secured not less than forty five percent (45%) marks in the
aggregate with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory
subjects, along with one of the following subjects:
Chemistry, Bio-Technology, Computer Science, Biology and
Electronics.
Provided that, the minimum marks for the purpose of
eligibility shall be forty percent (40%) in optional subjects in
case of candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC.
Provided that, the candidate shall have studied and passed
English as one of the subjects.”
Thus the University fixed a marginally higher eligibility criteria,
that is 40; for candidates belonging to schedule castes and
schedule tribes and 45% for others, as against 35% and 40%
respectively suggested by the AICTE norms.
6. The respective first Respondent in these two appeals
secured marks which were more than what was prescribed by
AICTE norms, but less than what was prescribed by the
University Regulations. They were admitted to the Bachelor of
Engineering Course during the academic year 2007-2008 by
second Respondent college in C.A. No. 1947/2011 and third
Respondent college in C.A. No. 1948/2011 under the
management quota. When the list of admissions were
submitted by the said colleges to the University for approval of
admissions, the University refused to approve their admissions
on the ground that they had secured less than the minimum
percentage required for being eligible to admissions. Feeling
aggrieved, the two students filed writ petitions before the High
Court for quashing the communications of the University
refusing to approve their admission, to treat them as eligible
for prosecuting the B.E course and to approve their admission
and permit them to participate in the examinations conducted
by the University. They also sought a declaration that AICTE
norms prescribing eligibility criteria alone would govern
admissions to B.E. course and the Rules and Regulations of the
State and the University, in so far as they were contrary to
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (53 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
AICTE Regulations were unconstitutional, unenforceable and
inapplicable.
8. The Division Bench directed that every year, the University
should take into consideration, the standards it has fixed as
also the standards fixed by AICTE in regard to eligibility
criteria, and keeping in view the number of seats that may
remain unfilled/vacant during that year, extend benefit to the
students who fulfill the conditions mentioned in para 41(v) and
(vi) of the decision in Adhiyaman, by voluntarily
relaxing/lowering its standards without driving the students to
approach the courts for getting reliefs in terms of Adhiyaman.
The Division Bench also held that having regard to the decision
in Adhiyaman, students who are similarly situated to the writ
Petitioners, should also be given benefit by approval of their
admissions without driving them to court. The Division Bench
directed the University to approve the admissions of the two
writ petitions as they fulfilled eligibility criteria fixed by AICTE.
14. The Respondents (colleges and the students) submitted
that in that particular year (2007-2008) nearly 5000
engineering seats remained unfilled. They contended that
whenever a large number of seats remained unfilled, on
account of non-availability of adequate candidates, para 41(v)
and (vi) of Adhiyaman would come into play and automatically
the lower minimum standards prescribed by AICTE alone would
apply. This contention is liable to be rejected in view of the
principles laid down in the Constitution Bench decision in Dr.
Preeti Srivastava and the decision of the larger Bench in S.V.
Bratheep which explains the observations in Adhiyaman in the
correct perspective. We summaries below the position,
emerging from these decisions:
(i) While prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission to
institutions of higher education, the State/University
cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the
Central Body/AICTE. The term `adversely affect the
standards’ refers to lowering of the norms laid down by
Central Body/AICTE. Prescribing higher standards for
admission by laying down qualifications in addition to or
higher than those prescribed by AICTE, consistent with
the object of promoting higher standards and excellence
in higher education, will not be considered as adversely
affecting the standards laid down by the Central
Body/AICTE.
(ii) The observation in para 41(vi) of Adhiyaman to the
effect that where seats remain unfilled, the state
authorities cannot deny admission to any student
satisfying the minimum standards laid down by AICTE,
even though he is not qualified according to its standards,
is not good law.
(iii) The fact that there are unfilled seats in a particular
year, does not mean that in that year, the eligibility
criteria fixed by the State/University would cease to apply(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (54 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]or that the minimum eligibility criteria suggested by
AICTE alone would apply. Unless and until the State or
the University chooses to modify the eligibility criteria
fixed by them, they will continue to apply in spite of the
fact that there are vacancies or unfilled seats in any year.
The main object of prescribing eligibility criteria is not to
ensure that all seats are in colleges are filled, but to
ensure that excellence in standards of higher education is
maintained.
(iv) The State/University (as also AICTE) should
periodically (at such intervals as they deem fit) review the
prescription of eligibility criteria for admissions, keeping in
balance, the need to maintain excellence and high
standard in higher education on the one hand, and the
need to maintain a healthy ratio between the total
number of seats available in the state and the number of
students seeking admission, on the other. If necessary,
they may revise the eligibility criteria so as to continue
excellence in education and at the same time being
realistic about the attainable standards of marks in the
qualifying examinations.”
70. Thus, the petitioners have utterly failed to establish that
Notification dated 01.09.2023 issued by the State Government in
order to amend the Rules is either ultra vires to the Constitution of
India or is suffering from any lack of competence on the part of
Rule making authority or even is in conflict with O.M. dated
30.06.2023 in any manner. On the basis of above discussion, it is
also clear that the Notification dated 01.09.2023 is also not
repugnant to O.M. dated 30.06.2023. The petitioners are also
unable to point out any manifest, arbitrariness, or violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
71. While pressing the writ petitions, it was also submitted by
learned Counsel for the petitioners that subsequent to notification
dated 01.09. 2023, sufficient gestation period was not given to the
petitioners to acquire the requisite certificates of NCIC/CITS either
in regular manner or through RPL; and immediately advertisement
date 11.03.2024 was issued by the respondent Board. Hence, the
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (55 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
petitioners have been deprived of fair opportunity to participate in
the recruitment process. In this regard, we may observe that
validity of the Rule cannot be examined by keeping into account
any peculiar conditions of particular persons. It is settled that
Rules are framed in generality by keeping in mind interest of
entire class as a whole. Looking to the number of eligible
candidates, already possessing the requisite qualification, which
are around 13 times of the number of advertise vacancies, it
cannot be said that amended rules vide notification dated
01.09.2023 or the impugned advertisement are either arbitrary,
unjustified or even against the larger interest of the candidates
falling within zone of consideration. Hence, no interference can be
sought by the petitioners on the aforementioned grounds.
72. Under these circumstances, prayers made by the petitioners
in these writ petitions are outside the scope of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and deserve to be
dismissed.
73. We also find that the Advertisement dated 11.03.2024 has
also been issued strictly in accordance with the provision of Rules
and there is no apparent infirmity or illegality in such
Advertisement.
74. Consequently, these writ petitions stand dismissed.
75. The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the
recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement dated 11.03.2024
or any other similar Advertisement.
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21522-DB] (56 of 56) [CW-16312/2024]
76. Stay applications and all other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
77. A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
pcg/181-194(s)
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:59:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)