Uttarakhand High Court
Manoj Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 April, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved on:-20.03.2026
Delivered on:-23.04.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2156 of 2024
Manoj Singh Bisht ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Pant (through video conferencing) and Ms. Anupriya Kukreti,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Hariya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Mr. Shailendra
Nauriyal and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik, Advocates for the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 404 of 2024
Prayas Kumar and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection
Commission ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Mr. Shailendra
Nauriyal and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik, Advocates for the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 409 of 2024
Ajay Pokhriyal and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Pant (through video conferencing) and Ms. Anupriya Kukreti,
Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Hariya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Mr. Shailendra
Nauriyal and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik, Advocates for the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
2
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 775 of 2024
Deepak Bahuguna and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Pant (through video conferencing) and Ms. Anupriya Kukreti,
Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Hariya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Mr. Shailendra
Nauriyal and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik, Advocates for the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 940 of 2024
Lalit Singh Danu and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Hariya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Mr. Shailendra
Nauriyal and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik, Advocates for the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 947 of 2024
Manoj Fulara and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Hariya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Mr. Shailendra
Nauriyal and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik, Advocates for the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1550 of 2024
Vinod Kumar and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
3
Present:-
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Hariya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Mr. Shailendra
Nauriyal and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik, Advocates for the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2077 of 2024
Joni Kumar and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Hariya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Mr. Shailendra
Nauriyal and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik, Advocates for the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2157 of 2024
Randheer and Another ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Pant (through video conferencing) and Ms. Anupriya Kukreti,
Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Hariya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Mr. Shailendra
Nauriyal and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik, Advocates for the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
JUDGMENT
Per: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Since common questions of law and facts are involved
in this bunch of writ petitions, they are heard together and being
decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of
convenience, the facts of WPSS No.1550 of 2024, Vinod Kumar and
Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, are referred to, unless
otherwise specifically mentioned in this judgment.
2. The respondent no.3, The Uttarakhand Subordinate
Service Selection Commission (“the Commission”), issued an
advertisement on 16.02.2024 for appointment of Instructors for
4
various trades in the Government Industrial Training Institute of
Uttarakhand. One of the essential conditions in the advertisement is
that the candidates must possess National Craft Instructor Certificate
(“the NCIC”). At the time of filing of the petitions, the petitioners did
not possess the NCIC. The NCIC is done under the Craft Instructor
Training Scheme (“CITS”). In all these petitions, the petitioners seek
permission of the Court that they may be permitted to participate in
the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated
16.02.2024 issued by the Commission, and it may be declared that the
petitioners are eligible for the post advertised. The reliefs in the
petitions also include extension of time for submission of application
forms; challenge to the Service Rules by which the NCIC is made
mandatory for recruitment to the posts of Instructor in the Industrial
Training Institutes (“ITIs”) on the ground that the Rule which requires
the NCIC is arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the guidelines
issued by the Director General of Training, Government of India
(“DGT”). In some of the petitions, the petitioners have sought relief that
their candidature may be accepted subject to their obtaining the NCIC.
3. In order to appreciate the controversy, some of the
relevant facts are as below:-
(i) The appointment on the posts of Instructor in
different trades in Government Industrial Training
Institute is governed by the Uttarakhand
Government Industrial Training Institute
(Instructor) Service Rules, 2003 (“the 2003
Rules”).
(ii) Initially, for the appointment to the posts of
Instructor in the ITIs, NCIC was not necessary.
(iii) On 09.01.2020, the DGT, issued directions to all
the State Governments recommending changes
regarding the educational qualification, age limit
5of trainees and Instructors, by which the NCIC in
relevant trades was made essential qualification.
(iv) Pursuant to the communication dated 09.01.2020
of the DGT, the 2003 Rules were changed with
effect from 04.08.2022, and in Rule 8 of the 2003
Rules, it was provided that the eligibility criteria
for Instructors shall be such, as given in the
Appendix-B of the 2003 Rules. According to the
Appendix-B of the 2003 Rules, the NCIC is
essential qualification for appointment to the
posts of Instructor. Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, as
amended and enforced with effect from
04.08.2022, further provided that if in any trade,
NCIC is not available, for such trade, the NCIC
shall not be a mandatory requirement. It further
provided that for instructors, the qualification
shall be determined by the DGT from time to time
and it shall be made applicable subject to order of
the State Government.
(v) On 30.06.2023, the DGT relaxed the mandatory
requirement of NCIC for appointment to the posts
of Instructor in ITIs. It was made a preferential
qualification. It reads as follows:-
“Madam/Sir,
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 09.01.2020, 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 Government/UTs and other
stakeholders regarding non-availability of CITS
courses and CITS trained candidates in several
trades, especially for the New Age and Industry 4.0
related trades.
6
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 trade (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.No. Category of Qualifications For Instructor
Instructor
A Trade ** B.Voc/Degree in appropriate branch
Instructor of Engineering from AICTE/UGC
recognized Engineering
College/university or equivalent with
one-year experience in the relevant filed.
OR
** 03 years Diploma in appropriate
branch of Engineering from
AICTE/recognized board of technical
education with two years’ experience in
the relevant filed.
OR
* NTC/NAC and CITS/NCIC passed in
the 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 non-existence 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 Candidates (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.
7
4. Pursuant to Office Memorandum Dated 30.06.2023 of
the DGT, the 2003 Rules were not amended and the advertisement
dated 16.02.2024 was issued for the appointment to the posts of
Instructor in the ITIs making NCIC under CITS as one of the essential
qualifications. It is challenged.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the State Government
was under obligation to change the 2003 Rules in view of the Office
Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 of the DGT; the Office Memorandum
dated 30.06.2023, of the DGT shall have an overriding effect over the
2003 Rules; the petitioners are qualified, as per Office Memorandum
dated 30.06.2023, for appointment to the posts of Instructor. It is also
the case of the petitioners that the Office Memorandum dated
30.06.2023 of the DGT provides that in case of non-availability of CITS
qualified candidates, candidates with relevant technical qualification
may be recruited; as per the Seventh Schedule under the Union List,
the Union of India is entitled to make law in respect of Union agencies
and Institutions. The State Government is also competent to make law
on the subject, but it shall be subject to the provisions of entry 65 of
the List I in the Seventh Schedule; as per Article 254 of the
Constitution of India, any law made by the State Government, if it is
inconsistent with the law of Parliament, to that extent, it is void.
7. The factual narration does not end here. Some more
developments took place, which are as follows:-
(i) After the advertisement dated 16.02.2024, on
25.07.2024, the respondent no.2, the Director,
Directorate of Training and Employment,
Haldwani, Uttarakhand (“the Director”), wrote a
letter to the Secretary, the Government of
Uttarakhand, bringing it to the notice that the
8Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 has been
issued by the DGT. Thereby, instructions were
sought that the necessity of NCIC may be relaxed.
(This communication is Annexure No.5 to the
rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners in WPSS
No.404 of 2024.)
(ii) After this communication dated 25.07.2024 of the
respondent no.2, the Director, the State
Government made a communication to the
Secretary of the Commission on 30.07.2024,
bringing it to their notice the Office Memorandum
dated 30.06.2023 of the DGT for necessary action.
(This communication is Annexure No.6 to the
rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners in WPSS
No.404 of 2024.)
(iii) It appears that, thereafter, the Commission,
through its Letter No.1399, dated 14.10.2024,
requested an immediate response regarding the
matter and suggested that if there is any change
in the educational qualification criteria at that
stage, then candidates, who had not applied
earlier due to absence of NCIC, should also be
given an opportunity. (This is mentioned in the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, the
Director, in WPSS No.2077 of 2024.)
(iv) The Directorate, Training and Employment, on
08.11.2024, wrote to the Commission that since
the requisition had been sent to the Commission
on 15.06.2023, which was much before
30.06.2023, when the Office Memorandum
was issued by the DGT, relaxation to the NCIC
9
was not possible to be recorded in the requisition.
The State Government in its communication dated
08.11.2024 further recorded that in the State of
Uttarakhand, the total sanctioned vacancies of
Instructors is 1386, against which only 373
regular Instructors are working. Therefore, the
process for recruitment may be carried out as per
the requisition dated 15.06.2023, and if eligible
candidates are not available, in future, the
mandatory requirement of NCIC shall be relaxed,
and fresh requisition will be sent. (This
communication dated 08.11.2024 of the State of
Uttarakhand is Annexure No.7 to the rejoinder
affidavit that has been filed by the petitioners in
WPSS No.404 of 2024.)
8. The State of Uttarakhand, as such, has not filed any
counter affidavit. The respondent no.2, the Director, in its counter
affidavit has stated that the DGT had made the NCIC under CITS
mandatory for ITI Instructors on 09.01.2020, pursuant to which the
Service Rules were amended on 04.08.2022, and NCIC was made
essential qualification for the posts of Instructor in the ITIs. After
Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 of the DGT, the respondent
no.2, the Director, made a communication to the State Government on
25.07.2024, seeking relaxation in the mandatory condition of the NCIC
for the appointment to the posts of Instructor in ITIs, the Government
had communicated to the Commission on 30.07.2024 in the matter to
do the needful.
9. The respondent no.3, the Commission, has filed a
separate counter affidavit and has stated that NCIC is one of the
essential qualifications under the 2003 Rules, and the Commission
cannot issue advertisement in violation of the 2003 Rules.
10
10. After 30.07.2024, according to the respondent no.2, the
Director, the Commission, on 14.10.2024, sought directions from the
State Government. (Counter affidavit of the respondent no.2, the
Director, in WPSS No.2077 of 2024), and it was replied by the State
Government on 08.11.2024, directing the Commission to continue
with the recruitment process without relaxation of mandatory nature
of the NCIC. (Annexure No.7 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the
petitioners in WPSS No.404 of 2024.)
11. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the DGT prescribes qualification for Instructors in ITIs. It
is the apex body. Therefore, the qualification that has been prescribed
by the DGT shall be the qualification for the appointment of
Instructors in the ITIs. The following arguments have also been made
on behalf of the petitioners:-
(i) After the communication dated 09.01.2020 of the
DGT, the Service Rules were amended on
04.08.2022, whereby, NCIC conducted under
CITS was made a mandatory qualification for the
appointment to the posts of Instructor in the ITIs,
but post Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 of
the DGT, the 2003 Rules have not been changed.
(ii) On 30.07.2024, the State Government made a
communication to the Commission, which means
the requisition stood changed, and the NCIC does
not remain any necessary qualification for the
appointment to the posts of Instructor in the ITIs.
It is argued that, thereafter, either the
Commission should have returned the requisition
or issued a corrigendum, which was not done by
the Commission.
11
(iii) By way of Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023,
the DGT has made amendment in the essential
qualification for recruitment of the Instructors in
the ITIs, and it is admitted to the State Government.
(iv) Even after the date of advertisement, the
educational qualification can be changed. He
would refer to the principles of law, as laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tej
Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High
Court and Others, (2025) 2 SCC 1.
(v) In the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded the conclusion
in Para No.65 as below:-
“65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following
terms:
65.1. Recruitment process commences from the
issuance of the advertisement calling for applications
and ends with filling up of vacancies;
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select
list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment
process, cannot be changed midway through the
recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit,
or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the
extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is
permissible under the extant Rules or the
advertisement, the change would have to meet the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy
the test of non-arbitrariness;
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.,
(2008) 3 SCC 512, lays down good law and is not in
conflict with the decision in State of Haryana v. Subash
Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220. Subash Chander
Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed
from the select list whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals
with the right to be placed in the select list. The two
cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down
good law and is not in conflict with the decision
in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander
Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed
from the select list whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals
with the right to be placed in the select list. The two
cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;
65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules,
may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the
recruitment process to its logical end provided the
procedure so adopted is transparent, non-
discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus
to the object sought to be achieved;
65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding
on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and
eligibility. However, where the rules are non-existent, or
silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible
right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality
for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the
12
vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its
instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to
a person within the zone of consideration in the select
list.”
(vi) The State Government has accepted the Office
Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 of the DGT.
Hence, it is not a case of repugnancy or
supremacy of Service Rules or Office
Memorandum issued by the Central Government.
He would refer to the principles of law, as laid
down by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of
Komal Kumawat v. Union of India, Civil Writ
Petition No.16312 of 2024.
12. In the case of Komal Kumawat (supra), in fact, after
Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 of the DGT, the State of
Rajasthan, in exercise of its Rule making power under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, laid down essential qualification for
recruitment to the posts of Junior Instructor in different trades, and
apart from academic and technical qualifications, the requirement of
possessing relevant NCIC (CITS certificate) has been inserted.
However, while making such insertion, it was clarified that such
requirement of possessing NCIC/CITS certificate is only for those
trades where courses under CITS was available. Under these facts, the
Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no repugnancy or
inconsistency between the Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023, and
notification dated 01.09.2023 of the State Government. In Para Nos.
59, 60 and 61, the Court observed as hereunder:-
“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
13imagination, Notification dated 01.09.2023 can be said
to be repugnant to O.M. dated 30.06.2023. Plea
raised [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.”
13. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners adopts
the arguments as advanced by Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioners. He also made the following arguments:-
(i) After communication dated 30.07.2024 of the
State Government made to the Commission,
whereby, it was brought to the notice of the
Commission that the necessity of NCIC has been
relaxed by the Office Memorandum dated
30.06.2023 of the DGT, the Commission should
have returned the requisition or ought to have
issued fresh advertisement, which was not done.
(ii) The DGT is the supreme authority to declare the
education qualification, and any Rule, which does
not meet the requirement of DGT qualification
cannot be upheld.
(iii) Even if the Service Rules are not changed, the
Court should read down the Service Rules to hold
14
that the instructions and qualifications issued by
the DGT shall prevail.
(iv) The language implied in Rule 8(2) of the 2003
Rules clearly manifests a case of legislation by
reference, whereby the evolving standards
prescribed by the DGT stand automatically
engrafted into the Service Rules.
(v) The Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 of the
DGT has statutory flavour, and even the Service
Rules prescribe that the essential qualification be
such, as may be determined by the DGT.
14. It is argued that, in fact, it is the employer, who will
decide the essential qualification and in the instant case, by its
communication dated 30.07.2024, the State Government has brought
it to the notice of the Commission that the necessity of the NCIC has
been relaxed. Accordingly, the recruitment ought to have been made.
15. In support of his contention, Mr. M.C. Pant, learned
counsel for the petitioners, has referred to the principles of law, as laid
down by this Court in SPA No.285 of 2025, Manali Chaudhary and
Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, where in Para No.10, this
Court has held that, “the authority to decide the qualification for a
post is with the employer…..” In Para No.10, this Court observed as
follows:-
“10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we
are of the considered view that the judgment & order
under appeal is not sustainable as the authority to
decide the qualification for a post is with the employer
and the recruiting agency is bound by the decision
taken by the employer. In the present case, the
employer vide its communication had clearly specified
that the three years diploma in Agricultural Engineering
is valid and is equivalent qualification to the two years
diploma possessed by the candidates. Thus, the
recruiting agency, i.e., the UKPSC had to adhere to the
said decision. Even, in the writ proceeding; with respect
to the requisite educational qualification which a
candidate should possess; the stand of the employer
was clear and the said fact is evident from the various
orders referred in the proceedings of the Writ Court.
Thus, the rejection of the case of the petitioners by the
recruiting agency was improper.”
15
16. In support of his contentions, Mr. M.C. Pant, learned
counsel for the petitioners, has also placed reliance on the principles
of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Dehli High Court in the case of
Shri G.S. Bhogal v. Union of India and Others, in CW No.4227 of 1998,
and by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New
Delhi, in the case of Mrs. Garima Singh v. Union of India and others
(OA No.3278 of 2010).
17. In the case of G.S. Bhogal (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court has followed the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble
the Calcutta High Court, in Writ Petition No.11531 (W) of 1998,
wherein, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court observed as hereunder:-
“It is no doubt true that the rules of the
Corporation have not yet been amended and in terms of
paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum the decision of
the Central Government would not come into effect till
the rules are amended. But, in my view, the Corporation
was not entitled to keep the decision of the Central
Government in abeyance by not amending its rules,
although, the Office Memorandum had been received,
by the respondent no.1 Corporation on 10th June,
1998, so as to deprive the petitioner of the benefits
thereof. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with Mr. Guha
that having regard to the decision taken by the Central
Government at a time when the petitioner was still in
service, the petitioner should not be deprived of the
benefit of the said decision of the Corporation merely
because it had chosen not to amend its rules as per the
directions contained in the Office Memorandum in
question.”
18. The principles, as laid down by the Calcutta High Court
have been followed in the case of G.S. Bhogal (supra).
19. In the case of Mrs. Garima Singh (supra), The Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi, in Para 20 held
that:-
“20………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………
…………….The Government, in any case, cannot be
permitted to turn around and say that simply because
its slackness, it has been unable to carry out the
necessary amendments in the rules, and, therefore, the
OMs shall not be binding upon it. Such a stand,
particularly when the note envisaged under the OMs for
amendment has been added in other services of the
Government, cannot be countenanced. On one hand,
the OMs having not been inserted in the rules, it may
legally be submitted that the same would be of no use
and consequence, whereas, on the other hand, the
Government cannot be permitted to deny their
existence, nor backtrack from it, particularly in the
manner as mentioned above, when such note has been
16
inserted in other service rules, and where not so
inserted, the relaxation has been
granted………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………..
”
20. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioners
also adopts the arguments, as advanced by Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners. He further submits that the Service Rules
give a skeleton for the qualification. The essential qualification is to
be prescribed by the DGT.
21. Learned Advocate General for the State submits that the
Service Rules shall prevail over Office Memorandum; the Service
Rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India, and that was done pursuant to the direction dated 09.01.2020
of the DGT, which were made effective from 04.08.2022.
22. On behalf of the State, it is also argued that the
advertisement was issued on 16.02.2024, and post issuance of
advertisement, the essential qualification cannot be changed; there
are many posts vacant in the ITIs in the State of Uttarakhand. The
present exercise is for filling up of 370 posts, and once this process is
complete, the State shall immediately advertise other vacancies.
23. On behalf of the Commission, it is argued that the Office
Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 of the DGT cannot override the
Service Rules which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution
of India. In support of it, on behalf of the Commission, reliance is
placed on the principles of law, as laid down in the cases of Union of
India and Others v. Jagdish Singh and Others, in W.P.(C)
13770/2024, CM APPLs. 57702/2024 & 57703/2024, Union of India
and Another v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, and P.D.
Aggarwal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, (1987) 3 SCC 622.
24. In the case of Jagdish Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court has held that, “The learned Tribunal is correct in
holding that the DOPT OM cannot supersede or hold contrary to
17
the statutory Recruitment Rules framed in exercise of the power
conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India.”
25. In the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while dealing with the Office Memorandum, etc., in
Para 59, observed as hereunder:-
“59. The law laid down above has consistently been
followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an
authority cannot issue orders/office
memorandum/executive instructions in contravention
of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be
issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to
supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to
the statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji
Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v. State
of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v.
Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v.
Karnataka Lokayukta, (1998) 6 SCC 66, and Joint
Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Assn. of India v. DG
of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435.)”
26. In the case of P.D. Aggarwal (supra), the effect of Office
Memorandum has been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
and in Para 20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“20. The office memorandum dated
December 7, 1961 which purports to amend the United
Province Service of Engineers (Buildings and Road
Branch) Class II Rules, 1936 in our opinion cannot
override, amend or supersede statutory rules. This
memorandum is nothing but an administrative order or
instruction and as such it cannot amend or supersede
the statutory rules by adding something therein as has
been observed by this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v.
State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910. Moreover, the
benefits that have been conferred on the temporary
Assistant Engineers who have become members of the
service after being selected by the Public Service
Commission in accordance with the service rules are
entitled to have their seniority reckoned in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 23 as it was then, from the
date of their becoming member of the service, and this
cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to
the rules of 1969 and 1971 as it is arbitrary, irrational
and not reasonable.”
27. An Intervention Application has also been filed in WPSS
No.2156 of 2024, which is IA No.03 of 2025, by the candidates, who
were included in the provisional merit list.
28. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Advocate argued on
behalf of the interveners that post issuance of the advertisement, the
qualification cannot be changed. He submits that the interveners may
be permitted to intervene in the writ petition.
18
29. The Court is examining the effect of the Office
Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 issued by the DGT. Merely because
the interveners are included in the provisional merit list, they do not
get any right of appointment. They may not be heard in the instant
matter. Therefore, the Intervention Application, IA No.3 of 2025, is
liable to be rejected.
30. The Service Rules, which govern the field, are the 2003
Rules. Initially, the requirement of NCIC conducted under CITS was
not mandatory for appointment to the posts of Instructor in the ITIs,
but, on 09.01.2020, the DGT made a communication to all the State
Governments making NCIC conducted under CITS as mandatory.
Pursuant to it, the Rules were changed with effect from 04.08.2022,
and the NCIC was made mandatory for the appointment to the posts
of Instructor in the ITIs.
31. Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, as amended, provided that the
qualification shall be as given in Appendix-B, which, as stated, has
made NCIC an essential qualification for recruitment to the posts of
Instructor in the ITIs. Fact remains that Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules
also provides that if in any course NCIC is not run, for such course,
the NCIC shall not be a mandatory qualification. This Rule further
provides that technical qualification for the posts of Instructor shall
be such as shall be determined by the DGT from time to time and as
may be made applicable by the State Government by its order.
32. As per the amended Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, the DGT
guidelines, per se, shall not be made applicable for appointment
to the posts of Instructor in ITIs. But the DGT laid qualification,
as made applicable by the State Government by its order, shall be
the essential qualification for the posts of Instructor in
ITIs. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because DGT had
issued Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023, the Service
19
Rules get changed. In order to make the qualification laid down by
the DGT applicable in a State, an order of the State Government is
required to be passed in view of Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules.
33. This Court has held that educational qualification, as
laid down by the DGT, per se, shall not be made applicable for
appointment to the posts of Instructor in the ITIs, unless State
Government issues an order for making those qualifications
applicable. The question is has it been done in the instant case?
34. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that on
25.07.2024, the respondent no.2, the Director, had written it to the
State Government that NCIC qualification may be relaxed in view of
the Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 of the DGT, and, it is also
a fact that thereafter, on 30.07.2024, the Secretary, State of
Uttarakhand, communicated to the Secretary, Commission, to take
action in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023
of the DGT, but it did not stop here. The Commission did not act on
the communication dated 30.07.2024 of the State Government. (At
the cost of repetition, it may be noted that this communication dated
30.07.2024 is Annexure No.6 to the rejoinder affidavit of the
petitioners in WPSS No.404 of 2024).
35. Can it be said that the qualification change, as made by
the Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 by the DGT, has been
made applicable by the State Government by its communication
dated 30.07.2024 to the Commission? It cannot be said because the
Commission on 18.10.2024 sought directions from the State
Government, and the State Government, by its communication dated
08.11.2024, communicated to the Commission that since there is a
shortage of Instructors in the ITIs, the recruitment process shall
continue, and in future, the requisition shall be amended. This
communication dated 08.11.2024 of the Additional Director,
Training, is Annexure No.7 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the
20
petitioners in WPSS No.404 of 2024, which means that, in fact, the
State Government did not pass an order for making the change in the
essential qualification, as done by the DGT by its Office
Memorandum dated 30.06.2023. The Office Memorandum dated
30.06.2023 was not made applicable by the State Government till
date because, as stated, in its communication dated 08.11.2024, on
behalf of the State, the Commission was informed that amendment
will be made for further recruitment.
36. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Rajesh
and Another v. Balu and Others, MANU/MH/5213/2023, has
considered the effect of Office Memorandum and statutory Rules, and
held that, “where there is a conflict between executive
instructions and Rules framed under Article 309, the rules must
prevail.” In Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment, the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court observed as hereunder:-
“17. We seek support to our such interpretation from
the observations in the matter of Government of Andhra
Pradesh v. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.), (2008) 4 SCC 720.
Relevant paras read as under:
“33. According to Kelsen, in every country
there is a hierarchy of legal norms, headed by what
he calls as the “grundnorm” (the basic norm). If a
legal norm in a higher layer of this hierarchy
conflicts with a legal norm in a lower layer the former
will prevail (see Kelsen’s The General Theory of Law
and State).
34. In India the grundnorm is the Indian
Constitution, and the hierarchy is as follows:
(i) The Constitution of India;
(ii) Statutory law, which may be either law made by
Parliament or by the State Legislature;
(iii) Delegated legislation, which may be in the form of
rules made under the statute, regulations made
under the statute, etc.;
(iv) Purely executive orders not made under any
statute.
35. If a law (norm) in a higher layer in the
above hierarchy clashes with a law in a lower layer,
the former will prevail. Hence a constitutional
provision will prevail over all other laws, whether in a
statute or in delegated legislation or in an executive
order. The Constitution is the highest law of the
land, and no law which is in conflict with it can
survive. Since the law made by the legislature is in
the second layer of the hierarchy, obviously it will be
invalid if it is in conflict with a provision in the
Constitution (except the directive principles which,
by Article 37, have been expressly made non-
enforceable).”
18. Even following observation from S.K. Nausad
Rahaman v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 1 would be
relevant:
21
28. Fourth, norms applicable to the
recruitment and conditions of service of officers
belonging to the civil services can be stipulated in;
(i) A law enacted by the competent legislature;
(ii) Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution; and;
(iii) Executive instructions issued under Article 73 of
the Constitution, in the case of civil services under
the Union and Article 162, in the case of Civil
services under the States.
29. Fifth, where there is a conflict between
executive instructions and rules framed under Article
309, the rules must prevail. In the event of a conflict
between the rules framed under Article 309 and a
law made by the appropriate legislature, the law
prevails. Where the rules are skeletal or in a
situation when there is a gap in the rules, executive
instructions can supplement what is stated in the
rules.
30. Sixth, a policy decision taken in terms of
the power conferred under Article 73 of
the Constitution on the Union and Article 162 on the
States is subservient to the recruitment rules that
have been framed under a legislative enactment or
the rules under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution.
29. In the light of the above, the Tribunal has grossly
erred in blindly following the decisions of the High
Courts which held that the administrative guidelines
issued by the DGT under Article 73 will have primacy
over the recruitment rules framed by the State under
Article 309. For the reasons given by us, so long as the
field for providing for the qualification for the post of
craft instructor is not occupied by a law made by the
Parliament under Entry No. 66 of List I from Seventh
Schedule, the executive instructions issued by the
respondent – DGT by resorting to Article 73 will not
supersede the Recruitment Rules, 1983 framed under
Article 309 pursuant to which the impugned
advertisement was issued. The observations and
conclusions which form the basis for the Tribunal to
pass the impugned order are clearly unsustainable in
law.”
37. The observation of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is
based on the law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
cases, as referred to in the above observation of the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court.
38. In the instant matter also, the Office Memorandum dated
30.06.2023, may not prevail over the statutory Rules framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As stated, even otherwise, the
2003 Rules stipulate that the instruction of DGT with regard to the
educational qualification may not, per se, be enforceable unless they
are made applicable by the order of the State Government.
22
39. In the instant matter, the Office Memorandum dated
30.06.2023, has not been made applicable by the State of
Uttarakhand even till date.
40. There is a question as to whether the educational
qualification can be changed post advertisement?
41. In the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that eligibility criteria cannot
be changed midway through the recruitment process, unless the
existing Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary
to the extant Rules, so permit.
42. In the instant case, the Service Rules do not provide that
the essential qualification may be changed at any stage of the
recruitment process. Therefore, in the instant case, in fact, the
essential qualification could not have been changed post issuance of
the advertisement dated 16.02.2024.
43. The effect of Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023, and
the advertisement dated 16.02.2024, is to be seen. The advertisement
dated 16.02.2024 has been issued pursuant to the 2003 Rules, as
amended with effect from 04.08.2022 post communication dated
09.01.2020 of the DGT, which made NCIC an essential qualification
for recruitment to the posts of Instructor in the ITIs.
44. The question is what is this Office Memorandum dated
30.06.2023? It has already been quoted hereinbefore. It makes NCIC
as a preferential qualification. The Office Memorandum dated
30.06.2023 has not done away with the NCIC. The Office
Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 has been issued by the DGT on
multiple grounds, one of which is that a number of representations
have been received from the State Government/Union Territories and
other stakeholders with regard to non-availability of CITS courses
and CITS trained candidates in several States, specially for the New
Age and industry 4.0 related trades. And it records that if any
23
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. It further provides that if 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. It further provides that if any candidate, who is selected
without possessing CITS qualification for the trades, which are
having CITS course, such candidates will have to undergo CITS
training within 3 years.
45. One thing is clear from the Office Memorandum dated
30.06.2023 of the DGT that it has not done away with the NCIC
requirement. It has relaxed the necessity of NCIC at the initial stage,
but it has further provided that in case candidates with NCIC under
CITS are available, such candidates shall have preference, and in
case NCIC qualification holders are not available, and candidates are
selected, those candidates are required to undergo the CITS training
within 3 years.
46. According to the 2003 Rules, NCIC is the essential
qualification. A reading together of these Rules makes it clear that if a
candidate having NCIC under CITS is available, he shall get
preferential appointment, and non-NCIC holder may get appointment
only if NCIC holders are not available. In view of it, this Court does
not see any repugnancy in the Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023
and the advertisement.
47. What is the effect of this advertisement on the
petitioners? In fact, there is no effect on the petitioners. Even if the
Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 is made applicable, the
preferential appointment is to be given to such candidates, who
possess NCIC under CITS.
24
48. During the course of hearing, on behalf of the
Commission, it was argued that there are sufficient number of
candidates holding NCIC. In WPSS No.2156 of 2024, on 20.11.2025,
this Court passed the following order:-
“Let the respondent no.3 file a short affidavit giving the
following details:-
(i) How many valid application forms were
received?
(ii) How many candidates have NCIC Certificates?
(ii) How many candidates do not have NCIC
Certificates?"
49. The respondent no.3 is the Commission. The
Commission had filed the affidavit, which is as follows:-
• “A total of 2861 applications were received by
the answering respondent against the various
post of ITI instructor.
• A total of 409 applicants were successful in
providing the National Craft Instructor
Certificate (NCIC) which was obtained by the
candidates before the last cut-off date for
• A total of 28 candidates have acquired
National Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC)
after the last cut off date
• A total of 2424 candidates have failed in
providing National Craft Instructor Certificate
(NCIC) before the answering respondent.”
50. It may be stated that the total vacancies advertised are
370 under different trades, though, the petitioners in WPSS No.2156
of 2024, have filed a reply to the short counter affidavit that has been
filed by the Commission disputing the facts. According to it, the
Commission has not revealed as to what criteria has been adopted by
the Commission to verify the validity of this fact by providing the
details of those Institutes from which they obtain NCIC certificates
and recognition of the Institute. In fact, that is a verification part.
51. There are 370 posts advertised, and according to the
advertisement dated 16.02.2024, which is as per the 2003 Rules, the
NCIC under CITS is a necessary qualification. As per the short
counter affidavit of the Commission, 409 applicants were successful
in providing the NCIC, which was obtained by those candidates
before the last cut-off date. In any case, even if the Office
Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 is made applicable, the petitioners
cannot get preference over those candidates, who have got NCIC
25
under CITS before the cut-off date. Therefore, even if the Office
Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 is made applicable on the ongoing
recruitment process, it, in no manner, prejudices any of the rights of
the petitioners.
52. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not
see any reason to make any interference in the writ petitions.
Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
53. The intervention application (IA No.3 of 2025 in WPSS
No.2156 of 2024) is rejected.
54. All the writ petitions are dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
23.04.2026
Ravi Bisht
