Failure To Comply With Condition Not Specified In Recruitment Rules Or Advertisement, Can't Justify Rejection Of Candidate's Appointment: Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The Directorate Of Employment And Traning Department, Raipur issued an advertisement on 06.05.2023 for recruitment to the post of Training Officers in 23 streams. The petitioner submitted the application form as he had the requisite qualifications for the advertised post. The petitioner was shortlisted and was called for verification of the documents. He appeared before the respondent authorities for verification of the documents. Despite verification of documents, the authorities did not issue the appointment order in favor of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit document relating to the mode of payment of salary.

The petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities but it was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not getting salary either through bank account or post office. The respondent said that as per the clauses of the guidelines of NCVT, the engaged instructors or trainees should be paid their remuneration/salary only through banks/post offices. But the petitioner failed to place on record any document with regard to the requirements as stated in the Management Manual for Industrial Training Institutes.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

It was argued by the petitioner that the condition given in the Management Manual was directory in nature. The object of the instruction was to bring transparency and uniformity to the system. It was further contended that there was no such provision in the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (the Rules of 2014) and such condition was not inserted in the advertisement. It was also contended that no such requirement was added during the amendment to Rules of 2014 in the year 2019. It was further argued by the petitioner that the candidature of the petitioner was inquired into by the respondent authorities and there was no adverse report against the petitioner.

On the other hand, it was contended by the state that some of the candidates have worked in other states, therefore it was necessary for those workers to submit documents with regard to the mode of payment of salary to prove their credibility. It was further contended that according to the application form, the petitioner was required to submit documents showing mode of payment of salary, experience certificate, order of appointment etc. It was further contended by the state that technical education is the subject of the concurrent list and Rules have been framed by the Union of India and the same are being followed by the state.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that there was no requirement to submit documents showing mode of payment of salary because as per the application form, the candidates were required to submit the experience certificate, salary details, appointment order etc. And that there was no such condition in the advertisement also.

It was further observed by the court that instructions issued by the NCVT in the Management Manual for Industrial Trainee Institutes provide for payment of salary to vocational instructors of ITIs/ITCs (Regular/Contract basis) through banks/post offices only. But this condition was not mentioned either in the recruitment Rules or in the advertisement. Therefore, it was observed by the court that the instruction was directory in nature and its non-compliance will not lead to the rejection of the candidature of any of the candidates.

It was held by the court that the reason assigned by respondent, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner was not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the same was contrary to the Rules and conditions provided in the advertisement. Therefore, the order passed by respondent was quashed by the court. It was further held that the candidature of petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that he failed to place on record any document with regard to the mode of payment of salary.

It was ordered by the court to the respondent that the appointment procedure should be completed within a period of 60 days and thereafter, issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioner within a period of 15 days.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case No. : WPS No. 7925 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Dilman Rati Minj, G.A