Holding

The eligibility condition is a certificate in the respective trade from NCVT, and the State circulars deem the combination of basic and module certificates equivalent, rendering the appellant eligible and his rejection invalid.

Summary

The appellant applied for the post of Instructor (Fitter) in a Government Industrial Training Institute, where the eligibility required a certificate in the trade from the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT). He possessed three separate NCVT certificates – a basic one‑year Mechanical Trade, a six‑month Fitter General module, and a six‑month Metrology and Engineering Inspection module – which together amounted to two years of training but not a single NCVT certificate. The State rejected his candidature, and the High Court upheld the rejection, holding that the three certificates could not be treated as equivalent. Relying on circulars dated 16 December 1983, 18 August 1988 and 9 April 1992, the appellant argued that the combination was deemed equivalent to a two‑year NCVT certificate. The Supreme Court held that the eligibility condition is a certificate from NCVT, but it is not necessary that the qualification be contained in a single certificate; the State’s circulars validly confer equivalence, making the appellant eligible. Consequently, the Court directed the State to appoint the appellant within two months and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the combination of three separate NCVT certificates can satisfy the eligibility requirement of a single NCVT certificate under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules.
Whether circulars issued by the Government of India and the State Government can be treated as having the effect of law to modify the eligibility criteria without amending the service rules.
Whether the State was justified in rejecting the appellant’s candidature on the ground of lack of educational qualification.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2003s. Rule 8

Subjects

Service lawEligibility criteriaNCVT certificateEquivalenceCircularsIndustrial Training InstituteInstructor recruitmentAppointment

Judgment

[2019] 14 S.C.R. 755 755

RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9140 of 2019)
DECEMBER 06, 2019 B
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors)
Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2003: r.8 – Advertisement
issued by the Directorate of Training and Employment inviting
C
applications for the various posts of Instructors in the Government
Industrial Training Institute of the State – Appellant applied for
the post of Instructor in the subject of Fitter – Educational
eligibility condition prescribed for the said post was a certificate
in concerned trade from National Council of Vocational Training
(NCVT) apart from two years’ experience – Appellant applied for D
such post on the basis of his three educational qualifications:
National Trade Certificate of basic training of one year in
Mechanical Group imparted by Model Industrial Training Institute
(MITI), Haldwani; National Trade Certificate of further training
of six months in Fitter General imparted by MITI, Haldwani; and
E
National Trade Certificate of further training of six months in
Metrology and Engineering Inspection imparted by MITI, Haldwani
– He was found not eligible for the reason that he did not possess
two years course from NCVT – High Court dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant for the reason that three different
courses undertaken by the appellant could not be treated as F
equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Rules –
Appellant relied upon Circular issued on 16 th December, 1983
giving equivalency between various disciplines under Restructured
Pattern and Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme
– The said Circular clarified that a candidate having basic course
G
of Mechanical Trade of one year, Fitting General Module of six
months and Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module of six
months was treated to be equivalent to Fitter of two years training
– Subsequently, another Circular was issued on 9th April, 1992 that
certificate in Fitter Trade of two years granted by MITI, Haldwani
which included one year basic training and six months module be H
755
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A treated equivalent to the National Trade Certificate – Held: The
eligibility condition was that a candidate must have obtained a
certificate in respective trade from NCVT – It is not necessary that
a qualification prescribed in the Rules was to be possessed in one
certificate – The State itself has treated qualification of basic
course in Mechanical Trade Fitter, General Module and Metrology
B
and Engineering Inspection Module equivalent to conventional
pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme – Thus, the stand of the State
that the appellant was not possessing educational qualification
cannot be sustained – Service law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
C
HELD: The eligibility condition is that a candidate must
have obtained a certificate in respective trade from NCVT. It
is not necessary that a qualification prescribed in the Rules has
to be possessed in one certificate. Once the educational
qualification has been treated to be equivalent by the State
D Government in the Circulars issued earlier, the stand of the State
that appellant is not qualified has no legs to stand. 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
E Craftsmen Training Scheme. Thus, the stand of the State that
the appellant was not possessing educational qualification cannot
be sustained. The candidature of the appellant was not validly
rejected. Since candidature of the appellant was rejected on the
ground that he was not possessing educational qualification,
therefore, the State Government is directed to take proper steps
F for appointment of the appellant in accordance with law. [Paras
9, 10 and 11] [761-D-H; 762-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9140
of 2019.

G From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2016 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 2008 of 2011
Vivek Jain, Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Advs. for the Appellant.
Samat Vijay Singh, Dhruv Arora, Arun Tewatia, Advs. for the
Respondents.
H
RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 757

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 14th
December, 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
whereby the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order dated
26th April, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge was dismissed. B

2. An advertisement was issued on 17th March, 2008 by the
Directorate of Training and Employment, Lucknow, U.P. inviting
applications for the various posts of Instructors in the Government
Industrial Training Institute of the State. The appellant applied for the
post of Instructor in the subject of Fitter. The educational eligibility C
condition prescribed for the said post was a certificate in concerned
trade from National Council of Vocational Training1 apart from two
years’ experience in any industry or training/educational institute, either
before or after getting instructor training. The appellant applied for such
post on the basis of the following educational qualifications: D
(a) National Trade Certificate of basic training of one year
from September, 1990 to August, 1991 in Mechanical Group
imparted by Model Industrial Training Institute2, Haldwani;
(b) National Trade Certificate of further training of six months
from September, 1991 to February, 1992 in Fitter General E
imparted by MITI, Haldwani; and
(c) National Trade Certificate of further training of six months
from March, 1992 to August, 1992 in Metrology and
Engineering Inspection imparted by MITI, Haldwani.
F
3. The appellant was found not eligible for the reason that he
does not possess two years course from NCVT. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for the reason that three
different courses undertaken by the appellant cannot be treated as
equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Rules.
4. The appellant relies upon Circular issued by Ministry of Labour G
& Rehabilitation, Government of India on 16th December, 1983 giving
equivalency between various disciplines under Restructured Pattern and
Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme. The said Circular
1
for short, NCVT
2
for short, MITI H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A clarifies that a candidate having basic course of Mechanical Trade of
one year, Fitting General Module of six months and Metrology and
Engineering Inspection Module of six months was treated to be
equivalent to Fitter of two years training. Subsequently, the State
Government vide communication dated 18 th August, 1988 issued
directions for considering the eligibility of training obtained from MITI,
B
Haldwani for services and posts under State Government. The same
is reproduced hereunder:
“From
The Director
C Training and Employment
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
To
The Secretary
Government of Uttar Pradesh
D Labour Department
Secretariat, Lucknow.
Letter No. /E-2/0102/Policy(General)/84-85
Dated: August 18, 1988
Sub : Regarding issuance of directions for considering the trainees
E
obtained training from Model Industrial Training Institute,
Haldwani.
Sir
Shri Q.L. Juneja, Principal/Deputy Director, Model Industrial
F Training Institute, Haldwani (Nainital) has requested that orders
for considering the trainees who have obtained training from this
institute for the services/appointments under State Government.
In this reference, he informed that directions for issuance of
necessary orders in this regard have already been given to all
the Ministries of Government of India and different departments
G vide Letter No. D.G.E.T.-5/7/83-T.C. dated 31st October, 1983
and that request has been made for issuance of above orders at
the earliest to all the State Governments and Union Territories
of the Country.
2. In this reference, it is noteworthy that on recommendation of
H National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT), the Government
RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 759
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

of India has established the above Institute in year 1981 under A
re-structured training pattern of the Craftsmen training scheme,
for which, the Government has already been provided 11 acres
of land.
3. Following two certificates are being issued by the Model
Industrial Training Institute, Haldwani (Nainital): B
(1) National Training Certificate Basic Training.
(2) Certificate of Proficiency awarding to the successful
trainees under the restructured training pattern of
Craftsmen Training Scheme.
C
4. It is well-considered opinion of this directorate, that the above
both certificates granted by above institute kindly be declared
eligible for services and posts under State Government like
Government of India, whereby, the candidates trained by above
institute may be retired in the services under State Government.”
D
5. Subsequently, another Circular was issued by the Training and
Employment Directorate on 9th April, 1992 that certificate in Fitter
Trade of two years granted by MITI, Haldwani which includes one year
basic training and six months module be treated equivalent to the
National Trade Certificate. The Circular reads as under:
E
“From
The Director
Training and Employment Directorate
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
To F

1. All Regional/District/City Employment Officer
All Regional/District/City Employment Office, U.P.
2. All Deputy-Head of University, Employment, Information
and Consultation Center, U.P. G
Letter No. 1083/E-2/0102/Policy Regn./90
Lucknow, dated 09 April, 92.
Sub : For getting recognized certificate in two years fitter trade
granted by MITI, Haldwani equivalent to N.T.C. H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A Sir
It is informed vide letter No. D.G.E.T.-7(1)/91-C.D. dated
18.02.1992 of Training and Employment Directorate General,
New Delhi that the certificate in fitter trade of two years granted
by MITI, Haldwani wherein, one year basic training and six
B months modules are included, shall be treated equivalent to the
National Trade Certificate. Therefore, you are hereby directed
that those candidates, who have received above training and may
appear for registration in your office, then, please be registered
them in profession equivalent to N.T.C. for Employment/Trainee
C Training.”
6. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the
qualification obtained by the candidate in three different modules is
treated to be equivalent to the Fitter Trade of two years duration as
per the Circulars issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 18th
D August, 1988 and 9th April, 1992, therefore, the appellant is eligible
candidate for appointment to the post of Fitter.
7. Learned counsel for the State has filed an additional affidavit
to explain the said three Circulars relied upon by the appellant. It is
mentioned that the appellant is not possessed of the qualification as
E mentioned in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes
(Instructors) Service Rules, 19913, as amended in the year 2003 called
the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service
(Second Amendment) Rules, 20034. It is pointed out that Circulars dated
16th December, 1983, 18th August, 1988 and 9th April, 1992, relied upon
F by the appellant, will have no effect unless necessary amendment is
being made in the Rules for the appointment of Instructors in the State.
8. Rule 8 of the amended Rules has prescribed the following
academic qualifications:
“8. Academic Qualification – (1) A candidate for recruitment to
G the post of instructor other than the post of language instructor
(Hindi/English) in the Service must possess the following
qualifications:

3
for short, ‘the Rules’
4
H for short, ‘the amended Rules’
RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 761
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

(1) Educational - A
(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 B
from the National Council for Training in Vocational
Trades.
OR
Must have obtained National Apprenticeship Certificate in the C
respective trade.
OR
**** ****”
9. We find that the stand of the State that appellant is not
D
possessed of educational qualifications is not tenable. The eligibility
condition is that a candidate must have obtained a certificate in
respective trade from NCVT. It is not necessary that a qualification
prescribed in the Rules has to be possessed in one certificate. The
Circular of the Government of India dated 16 th December, 1983
prescribes the following conditions: E
Restructured Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme Conventional Pattern of
Craftsmen Training Scheme
Sl. Identified trades NCO Duration Total Trade Duration
No. group & Module(s) No. of Trg. Duration of Trg.
for equivalency of trg.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 i. Basic Course in One year 2 Yrs. Fitter 2 Yrs. F
Mechanical trades
group.

ii. Fitting General 842.10 6 months
Module.

iii. Metrology & 840.10 6 months
Engineering G
Inspection Module.

10. It is on the basis of such Circular, the Director of Training
and Employment of the State has issued Circulars on 18th August, 1988
and on 9th April, 1992 that such qualification will be deemed to be
equivalent to the National Trade Certificate. Once the educational H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 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 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. Thus, we find that
B
the stand of the State that the appellant was not possessing educational
qualification cannot be sustained. The candidature of the appellant was
not validly rejected.
11. Since we have found that candidature of the appellant was
rejected on the ground that he was not possessing educational
C qualification, therefore, the State Government is directed to take proper
steps for appointment of the appellant in accordance with law within
two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. In view
of the above, the appeal is allowed.

D
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H