Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 999
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a candidate holding multiple trade certificates be considered equivalent to a candidate holding a single, combined certificate for the same trade? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of instructors in Uttar Pradesh. The Court examined whether a candidate with a series of trade certificates could be considered eligible for a position requiring a single certificate in the same trade. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the opinion authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.
Case Background
In 2008, the Directorate of Training and Employment, Lucknow, U.P., issued an advertisement for various Instructor posts in Government Industrial Training Institutes. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi (the appellant) applied for the post of Instructor in Fitter. The required educational qualification included a certificate in the concerned trade from the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) and two years of experience. The appellant possessed the following qualifications:
✓ A one-year basic training certificate in Mechanical Group from Model Industrial Training Institute (MITI), Haldwani (September 1990 – August 1991).
✓ A six-month further training certificate in Fitter General from MITI, Haldwani (September 1991 – February 1992).
✓ A six-month further training certificate in Metrology and Engineering Inspection from MITI, Haldwani (March 1992 – August 1992).
The authorities rejected the appellant’s application, stating that he did not possess a single two-year course certificate from NCVT. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld this decision, stating that the three certificates held by the appellant could not be considered equivalent to the prescribed qualification.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17th March, 2008 | Advertisement issued by Directorate of Training and Employment, Lucknow, U.P., for Instructor posts. |
| September 1990 – August 1991 | Appellant completes one-year basic training in Mechanical Group at MITI, Haldwani. |
| September 1991 – February 1992 | Appellant completes six-month training in Fitter General at MITI, Haldwani. |
| March 1992 – August 1992 | Appellant completes six-month training in Metrology and Engineering Inspection at MITI, Haldwani. |
| 26th April, 2011 | Single Judge of the High Court dismisses the writ petition filed by the appellant. |
| 14th December, 2016 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismisses the appeal filed by the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant challenged the rejection of his application before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A single judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appellant’s three certificates were not equivalent to the required qualification. The appellant then filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the High Court. The High Court reasoned that the three separate courses undertaken by the appellant could not be treated as equivalent to the single qualification prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 1991.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the educational qualifications required for the post of instructor as per the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 1991, as amended in 2003. Rule 8 of the amended Rules states:
“8. Academic Qualification – (1) A candidate for recruitment to the post of instructor other than the post of language instructor (Hindi/English) in the Service must possess the following qualifications:
(1) Educational –
(i) Must have passed Intermediate examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or an Examination recognised by the Government as equivalent, thereto.
(ii) Must have obtained a certificate in the respective trade from the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades.
OR
Must have obtained National Apprenticeship Certificate in the respective trade.”
The appellant relied on circulars issued by the Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation, Government of India, on 16th December, 1983, which provided equivalency between various disciplines under the Restructured Pattern and Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme. This circular stated that a candidate with a one-year basic course in Mechanical Trade, a six-month Fitting General Module, and a six-month Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module was equivalent to a two-year Fitter training.
The State Government also issued circulars on 18th August, 1988, and 9th April, 1992, recognizing the training from MITI, Haldwani, and stating that a two-year fitter trade certificate from MITI, Haldwani, which included one year of basic training and six months of modules, would be treated as equivalent to the National Trade Certificate.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that the qualifications he obtained in three different modules should be considered equivalent to a two-year Fitter Trade certificate, as per the circulars issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 18th August, 1988, and 9th April, 1992.
- The appellant contended that the State Government had already recognized the equivalency of the training he received at MITI, Haldwani, with the National Trade Certificate.
- The appellant relied on the circular of the Government of India dated 16th December, 1983, which specified that the combination of a basic course in Mechanical Trades, a Fitting General Module, and a Metrology & Engineering Inspection Module was equivalent to a two-year Fitter course.
State’s Submissions:
- The State argued that the appellant did not possess the qualification as prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 1991, as amended in 2003.
- The State contended that the circulars relied upon by the appellant would have no effect unless the necessary amendments were made to the Rules for the appointment of Instructors in the State.
- The State emphasized that the rules required a single certificate in the respective trade from the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades and that the appellant’s multiple certificates did not meet this requirement.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Equivalency of Qualifications | Multiple certificates equivalent to two-year Fitter Trade certificate | Appellant |
| State Government recognized equivalency | Appellant | |
| Circular of Government of India supports equivalency | Appellant | |
| Validity of Circulars | Appellant does not possess prescribed qualification | State |
| Circulars ineffective without rule amendment | State | |
| Rules require a single certificate from NCVT | State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:
✓ Whether the appellant, possessing multiple trade certificates, can be considered to have the educational qualification prescribed in the Rules for the post of Instructor.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant’s multiple trade certificates are equivalent to the required qualification? | Yes, the appellant’s qualifications are equivalent. | The Court relied on the Government of India circular dated 16th December, 1983, and the State Government circulars dated 18th August, 1988, and 9th April, 1992, which recognized the equivalency of the appellant’s qualifications. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Circular of Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation, Government of India, dated 16th December, 1983 – This circular established the equivalency between the Restructured Pattern and Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme, stating that a combination of a basic course in Mechanical Trades, a Fitting General Module, and a Metrology & Engineering Inspection Module was equivalent to a two-year Fitter course.
Circular of the Director, Training and Employment, Uttar Pradesh, dated 18th August, 1988 – This circular directed the consideration of trainees from Model Industrial Training Institute (MITI), Haldwani, for services and posts under the State Government, recognizing the training provided by the institute.
Circular of the Director, Training and Employment Directorate, Uttar Pradesh, dated 9th April, 1992 – This circular clarified that a two-year fitter trade certificate from MITI, Haldwani, which included one year of basic training and six months of modules, should be treated as equivalent to the National Trade Certificate.
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 1991 – As amended in 2003, these rules prescribe the qualifications for the post of instructor, requiring a certificate in the respective trade from the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades (NCVT).
| Authority | How Considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| Circular of Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation, Government of India, dated 16th December, 1983 | Followed: The court relied on this circular to establish the equivalency of the appellant’s qualifications. |
| Circular of the Director, Training and Employment, Uttar Pradesh, dated 18th August, 1988 | Followed: The court used this to support the recognition of MITI, Haldwani training. |
| Circular of the Director, Training and Employment Directorate, Uttar Pradesh, dated 9th April, 1992 | Followed: The court used this to support the equivalency of the appellant’s qualifications. |
| Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 1991 | Interpreted: The court interpreted the rules to not necessarily require a single certificate, but the equivalent qualification. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that multiple certificates are equivalent to a two-year Fitter Trade certificate. | Accepted: The court agreed that the appellant’s qualifications, when combined, met the required standard. |
| State’s submission that the appellant does not possess the prescribed qualification under the Rules. | Rejected: The court found that the State’s stand was not tenable, as the appellant’s qualifications were equivalent to the required certificate. |
| State’s submission that the circulars are ineffective without rule amendment. | Rejected: The court held that the State had already recognized the equivalency through its own circulars. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on the Circular of Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation, Government of India, dated 16th December, 1983, to establish the equivalency of the appellant’s qualifications. The Court also relied on the Circular of the Director, Training and Employment, Uttar Pradesh, dated 18th August, 1988, and the Circular of the Director, Training and Employment Directorate, Uttar Pradesh, dated 9th April, 1992, to support the recognition of MITI, Haldwani training and the equivalency of the appellant’s qualifications. The court interpreted the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 1991 to not necessarily require a single certificate, but the equivalent qualification.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the State Government itself had previously recognized the equivalency of the appellant’s qualifications through its circulars. The Court emphasized that once the State had treated the qualifications as equivalent, it could not later take a contradictory stand. The Court also considered the circular issued by the Government of India, which supported the equivalency of the appellant’s qualifications. The Court’s reasoning focused on the need for consistency and fairness in the application of rules and regulations, ensuring that candidates are not unfairly disadvantaged due to technical interpretations. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the principle that the rules should not be interpreted in a manner that defeats the purpose of the rules.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| State Government’s Previous Recognition of Equivalency | 40% |
| Government of India Circular Supporting Equivalency | 30% |
| Need for Consistency and Fairness | 20% |
| Purpose of the Rules | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the appellant was not qualified, stating, “Once the educational qualification has been treated to be equivalent by the State Government in the Circulars issued earlier, the stand of the State that appellant is not qualified has no legs to stand.” The Court further noted, “The State itself has treated qualification of basic course in Mechanical Trade Fitter, General Module and Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module equivalent to conventional pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme.” The Court concluded that “the candidature of the appellant was not validly rejected.”
Key Takeaways
- Multiple trade certificates can be considered equivalent to a single, combined certificate if the relevant authorities have recognized such equivalency.
- State governments must maintain consistency in their stand regarding the equivalency of qualifications.
- Technical interpretations of rules should not unfairly disadvantage candidates who possess equivalent qualifications.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the State Government to take proper steps for the appointment of the appellant in accordance with the law within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a state government has previously recognized the equivalency of certain qualifications through circulars, it cannot later deny such equivalency without a valid reason. This case clarifies that the interpretation of rules should be fair and consistent, and that the purpose of the rules should not be defeated by technical interpretations. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the court has emphasized the need for consistency and fairness in the application of rules and regulations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant’s qualifications were equivalent to the required educational qualification for the post of Instructor. The Court emphasized that the State Government could not take a contradictory stand after having previously recognized the equivalency of the appellant’s qualifications. The Court directed the State Government to appoint the appellant within two months. This judgment underscores the importance of consistency and fairness in the application of rules and regulations, ensuring that candidates are not unfairly disadvantaged due to technical interpretations.