Summary
The Court held that an applicant for Fitter Instructor possessed the prescribed educational qualification through three training modules already recognised as equivalent to the conventional two-year Fitter certificate. The rules required a certificate in the respective trade from NCVT, without requiring all training to appear in a single certificate. The State could not reject the qualification despite its own prior equivalence circulars. It was directed to take steps for appointment according to law.
Issues
- Whether the applicant’s three recognised training modules satisfied the prescribed Fitter Instructor qualification.
Provisions considered
- Rule 8(1), educational qualification (ii), Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 1991, as amended in 2003The prescribed trade-certificate qualification did not require the recognised training to be contained in a single certificate. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
Held
- The requirement of a certificate in the respective trade did not mean the qualification had to be possessed through one certificate. The basic mechanical course and two further six-month modules matched the recognised equivalent of two-year Fitter training. (¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 8, 9)
- The State’s earlier circulars treated those modules as equivalent to the National Trade Certificate. Its contrary position that the applicant lacked the educational qualification was unsustainable, and rejection of his candidature was invalid. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Appeal allowed. State Government directed to take proper steps for appointment of the appellant according to law within two months of receipt of the judgment.