Mahesh Kumar Bhana Bhai Parmar and 1 vs State of Gujarat and Others

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—The petitioners by way of this petition has approached this Court with following prayers.

18.A) admit this petition.

B) issue appropriate writ, order or-direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the Supervisor Instructor (Engineering Trade, Non-Engineering Trade) Class-III in the Gujarat Skill Training Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 which have been framed by publishing Notification dated 29/9/2008 and the said Rules, precisely Rule-3 may kindly be declared ultra virus the other provisions of the Constitution and the same may be declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of rules, regulations framed by Union of India in respect of regulating appointment on the post of Craft Instructors/Vocational Instructors and, therefore, the said rules as well as Notification may kindly be quashed and set aside;

C) grant interim relief and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision for amendment of Supervisor Instructors (Engineering Trade, Non-Engineering Trade) Class-III in the Gujarat Skill Training Service Recruitment Rules, 2008, pending admission and final disposal of this petition;

D) pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice.

The petitioners have thus essentially challenged the communication dated 26/9/2012, reproduced at page-139 in this petition. The petitioners have obtained requisite certificates and they were aspiring to be employed as Craft Supervisors or Craft Instructors in CVT & ATI for the institutions run by the State or under auspices of the State. The Recruitment Rules framed by the State in the year 2008 on account of availability of persons having better qualifications the minimum criteria is changed. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited this Court''s attention to page-60 and submitted that the State Governments and Union Territories are given directions by the Director of Training, Government of India in respect of prescribing qualifications for appointment of vocational instructors in ITIs and ITCs.

This Court is of the view that the petition is misconceived and hopelessly meritless for the following reasons, namely:-

The Counsel for the petitioner is incorrect in submitting that the directives issued at page-60 is required to be interpreted as if it leaving no room for the State for prescribing qualifications. The Counsel, unfortunately could not notice the clear wording of para-2 which provides for prescribing minimum qualifications.

Following minimum Qualification (academic as well as technical) for appointment of vocational instructor in ITIs/ITCs for trades under CTS was approved by the council.

* Degree should be from recognized University

** Diploma should be from recognized Board/Institution

This wordings would clearly indicate that what was intended by the competent authority by issuing direction was to maintain minimum educational qualification criteria and hence when there is already a mentioning of degree in engineering or 3 years diploma in appropriate branch or trade and the State has on account of availability of such qualified persons prescribed the said qualifications for appointment and recruitment, then the Recruitment Rules cannot be frowned upon on account of so called mandate, which in my view is not a mandate so as to provide for qualifications criteria.

Learned counsel has relied upon the Division Bench judgment in Special Civil Application No. 10199 of 2011 & allied matters in case of Prajapati Paresh Govindbhai & Others Vs. State of Gujarat Through Principal Secretary & Others, decided on 02/12/2011 to draw an analogy between two institutions which have been the effect of issuing directives. Unfortunate, it is, that the counsel has again not perceived status of the issuing authority nor has he pointed out any binding effect. The fact of that case would have no bearing upon the facts of present case. Present case is in respect of Recruitment Rules based upon the directives which itself contain qualifications and the alternative qualifications. The minimum qualification when is prescribed, then, it is to be understood and appreciated that any qualifications lesser than that qualifications is not to be prescribed. The entire petition is therefore misconceived and is required to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. However in view of the peculiar facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs.