Same Standard Of Selection Should Be Maintained In All States For Vocational Or Technical Teachers : Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that same standard of selection should be maintained in all states for the teachers of vocational or technical courses. 

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said,

"it is to be observed that so far as education whether technical or vocational is concerned, the standard ought to be maintained universally all over India. More so, as a candidate has a right of seeking employment in any State, need of the RAC is to provide similar standard of education to all students in all the States."

There should be no deviation in the capability of the teachers, who are required to teach and instruct in the various courses whether vocational or technical. In view thereto, it is essential that same standard of selection should be followed by all States, added the Court.

A batch of petition was filed challenging the advertisement issued by Haryana Staff Selection Commission for appointment of Craft Instructor the ground that it did not conform to the instructions laid down by the Directorate General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Government of India (DGT) requiring the candidates to possess mandatory course under CITS for appointment as Craft Instructor.

The DGT issued guidelines in 2010 to various States directing that ITI Instructors must receive training as per the norms laid down by the National Council for Vocational Training ('NCVT') and must possess the Craft Instructor Training Certificate.

In 2013 the Industrial Training Department, State of Haryana, notified the "Industrial Training Department Haryana Field Offices (Group-C) Service Rules, 2013" wherein they provided for filling up the post of Instructor, Craft Instructor, Craft Instructor (COE), Craft Instructor (women). However, it did not provide for a candidate to necessarily have in his possession Craft Instructor Certificate.

On the other hand, Union of India again issued instructions in 2016 to the Director dealing with the Vocational Training to comply with the decisions taken by the NCVT on norms and courses in its meeting held in 2015. As per their norms for recruitment of Instructors, CITS course was to be done mandatory for all ITIs Instructors.

In 2020 DGT again wrote to revise the recruitment rules of Vocational Instructors of ITIs and include CITS qualification as an essential qualification to bring qualitative improvement in Vocational Training Courses across the country. 

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that Entry 66 of Union List in Schedule Seventh provides for standards in institution for higher education.

Executive Power Of Union Under Article 162 With Respect To The Matters Relating To Legislative Powers Of State Is Exclusive

Perusing Articles 73, 162 and 246 of the Constitution the Court said, "it is apparent that the Central Government may establish vocational institutions and determine standards of such institutions and also make provisions for appointment of teachers/ instructors in such national level vocational institutions. Independently the State Government can also establish vocational and technical centres and in terms of Article 246 (2) of the Constitution of India, lay down rules which may be framed under Article 309 and proviso thereto for appointment of teachers/ instructors in such institution."

Thus, the power of framing rules for appointment and the minimum qualifications required, are available with the State Government as well as with the Central Government for their respective institutions. "The extent of executive power of the Union under Article 162 of the Constitution of India with respect to the matters relating to the legislative powers of the State is exclusive", the bench added.

Justice Sharma speaking for the bench noted that, the NCVT i.e. the National Council of Vocational Training is not established under any Act passed by the Parliament and is an executive body formed by the Director General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Government of India, by exercising powers under Article 73 (1) of the Constitution of India.

The Court opined that, therefore, letter issued by the DGT requesting the respective State Governments to incorporate the requirement of Craft Instructor Training Certificate as a prerequisite qualification for appointment of instructor in various faculties, for; it is to be considered as directory and not mandatory.

The Court rejected the argument of senior counsel for the petitioners' that, the State Government cannot be allowed to ignore the directions issued by the executive of the Union.

"Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution of India relate to the executive powers of the Union and the corresponding provisions with regard to the executive powers of the State Government," said the Court.

The bench also clarified that it "may not be misunderstood to mean that the State Government should not follow the guidelines issued by the Central Government, however, if for practical reasons, it is not possible to make such a requirement as mandatory, and the rules framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution have not been incorporated such a condition for the purpose of appointment as Craft Instructors; this Court by Writ of Mandamus would not direct the State Government to frame their rules accordingly nor can a rule framed by the State Government be declared ultra virus on the said basis."

The Court also said that it is not a case where there is any difficulty in providing CITS training in Punjab and Haryana on account of any reasons, therefore, "it is necessary that the State Government should take steps to incorporate the said condition as a pre qualification in their service rules in order to maintain the same standard of all the Instructors."

Those instructors, who do not possess CITS qualification, should be asked to obtain such a training even after appointment so that the standard is maintained by all Instructors while performing their duties, it added.

While dismissing of the plea, the Court directed "the State Government to take steps keeping in view our observations, as above, and make amendments in the rules accordingly for future."

It further directed the State to proceed further and give appointments to all the candidates, as per their merits experience "expeditiously so that the courses in all the ITIs can commence."

Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with  Amandeep Singh Talwar, Abjijeet Singh Rawlaey, Abishai George, Advocates, for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 37892 of 2018 and 8984 of 2023.

Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate with  Nikhil Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 27658 of 2019.

Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for Somesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 4139 of 2022 and 8666 of 2023.

Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General with Somesh Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel, for Union of India in CWP No. 37892 of 2018, 27658 of 2019, 1992, 3424 and 4139 of 2022.

Anil Chawla, Senior Panel counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 7 Union of India/ in CWP No. 23887 of 2021.

 H. S. Oberoi, Advocate, for the respondent/ Union of India In CWP Nos. 8666 and 8984 of 2023.

 Shruti Jain Goel, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Lalit Rishi, Advocate and  Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent nos.5 to 13 in CWP No. 37892 of 2018.

D. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with B. S. Patwalia, Lalit Rishi,

Akshit Pathania, Advocates, for respondent nos. 5 to 14 in CWP No. 27658 of 2019.

Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate, for respondent nos. 15 to 22 in CWP No. 27658 of 2019.

Title: Dinesh Kumar and others v. UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 115

Click here to read/download the order