C^M?^7 THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR W,P.(S)N.0.^^7/201° 1 ^w ^w //\ f// ^ 1. Dilip Sing Thakur Aged about 31 S/o Prahaiad Singh Thakur R/o Dipak Nagar, Durg, Dist: Durg (CG) ' 2. Ram Prakash Vishwakarma Aged about 30 years S/o Pardeshi Babu Vishwakarma R/o Bhattapara, Near Manipur Schooi Ambikapur, Dist: Sarguja (CG) 3. Ravi Kumar Verma Aged about 31 years, S/b Ramadhar Verma VHi+PO:Dhaur(JCW) PS: Jamul, Tahsii'and Dist: Durg (CG) ^' 4. Rakesh Kumar Sahu Aged about 31 years S/o Manharanla! Sahu R/o Vill: Bhotlhi, PO: Basin, Tahsil: Gurur, Dist: Durg (CG) YERSUS 1. " TheStateofChhattisgarhThrough: The Secretary, Department of Technicai Education and Man Power Planning, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. , National Counci! for Vocational Training (NCVT), Through Director Shram Shakti Bhawan, New De!hi, 3. The Director, Directorate of Employment & Training, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Union of india, Through Directorate General of Employment and Traming, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Deihi. 1 > 1 .1 1 |cl^ 1s 10 1io |fisn 1-1 lm § ^o N> .l^.-€i^ u 'Yyy'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5641 of2010 Petitioners Gyanesh Chandra Bhoi & others Versus Respond.ents National Council for Vocational Training 85 others Writ Petition (81 No. 5674 of 2010 Petitioners Dilip Singh Thakur 85 others Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ Petition (S) No. 5678 of 2010 Petitioners Basant Kumar Shrivas 85 others Versus^ Respondents 'National Council for Vocational Training & others AND Writ Petition (S) No. 5711 of2010 Petitioners . Virendra Kumar Gautam & others Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DB: Hon'ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, 8& Hon'ble Mr. N. K. Agarwal, JJ. Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Shri Gary Mukhopadhyaya and Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the respondent/Union oflndia. O R D ER (orall ( Passed on this 28& day ofApril, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. These writ petitions i.e. W.P.(S) Nos. 5641, 5674, 5678 and 5711 of 2010 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of the Notification No. F 1-23/2009/42 published in the Official Gazette (Extraordinary) dated April 15, 2010, making amendments in the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted), Servrice Recruitment Rule, 2005, whereby the clause for experience in qualification as prescribed under Schedule III of the Rules, 2005 has been deleted and advertisement pursuant to the said amendment has been issued on September 02, 2010 for recruitment of Training Officer in Industrial Training Institute (ITI) contrary to the Executive Instructions of the Central Government as provided under Article 73 of the Constitution of India. (Rule 8 Schedule -III of Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2001 and Advertisement dated 2.9.2010. One additional challenge in W.P.(S) No. 5711/2010 is regarding non-recognition pf the State Level Training (to direct the respondents to treat the certificates issued by the respondent no.5 as recognized certificate for appointment in the posts of any department ofthe respondent State.). The counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating that the Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor and the Central Government's instructions are only guidelines. In this regard same question was arose before this Court which was concluded in W.P.(S) No. 2699/2008 (Vidya Bhushan Patel & another Vs. State of C.G. and others) vide order dated 30th July, 2010. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the order dated 30th July, 2010 reads as under : "4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of Clause 2 of Schedule III of Chattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Ser^ice Rules, 2005 (for short 'Rules,20059) on the ground that the same is contrary to the directives issued by the Central Government to all the concerned directing for necessary amendments in the recruitment rules with regard to the educational qualification for the post of Vocational Instructions in the Industrial Training Institutes. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Guest Spokesman in the Government Industrial Training Centre, Durg and Keshkaal respectively. The National Council of Vocational Training (for short 'NCVT') made recommendations to the Central Government to enhance the qualifications required for the post of Vocational Instructors in the Industrial Training Institutes and the same were accepted by the Central Government and vide circular dated 24.7.1996 al the concerned were directed for necessary amendments in the recruitment rules. Through the respondentNo.l-State amended the Rules, 2005 but the qualifications fixed for the post of Training Officer Grade III mentioned in Schedule-III are contrary to the instructions issued by the Central Government vide circular dated 24.7.1996. 6. Learned counsel or fhe petitioners would argue that subject of technical education falls under Entry 66 of List-I of the seventh schedule of Constitution of India and that the executive instructions issued by the Central Government are hinding on the State Government and the State cannot make the law contrary to the law enacted by the Union. The qualifications prescribed by the State are not in consonance with those prescribed by the Union. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it has been submitted that there is no law made by the Union which is in fact binding upon the State in respect of the qualifications fbced for the post of Vocational Instructions in the Industrial Training Institutes and Centers. The qualification fbced by the Union of India is only suggestive in nature and the same will be clear from perusal of the note appended to it and reads as under:- <(The qualifications suggested are based on the Central Government's recruitment rules. The State may, however, follow their own recruitment rules in this regard.?? 8. In view of the above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. In the result, the writ petition is misconceived, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ?? 5. The main thrust of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that in Schedule-III of Rule 8 of the Rules 2005 earlier the minimum qualification/eligibility was prescribed as 'the candidate must have passed high school examination with Maths, Physics & Chemistry subjects and have passed diploma or All India Craftsman Certificate Examination or Trade Apprenticeship Examination in related trade and must be trained from Central Training Institution, however if a candidate is not trained, he has to pass training examination within three years from date of his appointment. Apart from above it was mandatory requirement that the candidate must be having at least three years practical experience in concerned trade', which has been amended by the impugned amendment dated 15.4.2010. By the impugned amendment the qualification for appointment on the post of Training Officer Class-II of various trades ofTechnician posts has been prescribed that the candidate must have passed high school examination with Maths, Physics & Chemistry subjects and having degree/diploma in Electrical Engineering or equivalent from recognized University/Board or National Trade Certificate (NTC)/National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) or equivalent in related trade and must be trained from Central Training Institution, however, if a candidate is not trained, he has to pass training examination within three years from the date of his appointment. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the earlier Rule was enacted in conformity with the directions issued by the Union of India and National Council for Vocational Training to maintain the minimum standards for appointment on the post of Training Officer Class-III in various trades of technician posts and the object was to maintain minimum standard in the Industrial Training Institutes of all over the country. However, by the impugned amendment without any rhyme or reason deviating from the object sought to be achieved and in violation of the directions of the Union of India and National Council for Vocational Training Schedule -III, Rule 8 of the Rules, 2005 has been amended. In the instant writ petitions the Union of India has flled its return stating that (<the vocational training is a concurrent subject of both Central & State Governments. Governments of India has set-up 'National Council for Vocational Training (N.C.V.T.) an Advisory body in 1956 to advice Governments of India on various matters relating to Vocational Training. The N.C.V.T. is a tripartite body with members from Central/State Government Departments, Employers 85 Employees Organizations. Professionals and learned Bodies, Representatives of trade Unions, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Woman Organizations, The Council is chaired by the Union Labour & Employment Minister. The National Council for Vocational Training (N.C.V.T.) is a recommendatory body and has no statutory status. The recommendation made by it is not mandatory and these are implemented after taking necessary approval of the competent authority at the state level." Further, learned counsel for the petitioners have raised the question regarding fixation of experience qualifications which was '^ ^f-S^'i "^^-^"'^ I v-^y v^"-^ required earlier and that has been deleted by the subsequent amendment. The Rules, 2005 have been framed by the Government and the concerned department is the expert body. They know as to whether the experience would be required or not. If they have chosen to appoint the person without having the experience, the Courts cannot interfere therein as it is the administrative function of the State and the scope ofjudicial review is not there. 9. Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No. 5711/2010 contended that the qualification for Instructor has been fbced as NTC (National Trade Certificate) but the certificate issued by the State is not being recognized. Learned counsel submitted that there are more than 50 Industrial Training Institutes in the State and the certificates are issued to the candidates by the State Council for Vocational Training, which are accepted by various departm-ents of the State as well as Union of India. However, the candidates having certificate of Craftsman in related trade which is issued by the State Council for Vocational Training have not been made eligible in the impugned Rules. Further, the candidates having certificates issued by the State Council for Vocational Training cannot be distinguished from the candidates having certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training as they have gone through the same course prescribed by the Union of India. Thus discrimination has been made by the State between the candidates having certificate of apprenticeship issued by the State Council for Vocational Training and the National Council for Vocational Training. 10. We have perused the certificates annexed with the writ petition and found that the provisional certificate was issued by the State Board 11. 12. of Examination, State Council for Vocational Training to a candidate (Shri Kamleshwar Prasad Choudhary) when he was appearing in the State level vocational examination, but he was issued a National Apprenticeship Certificate by the National Council for Vocational Training when he received the apprenticeship training. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the persons, appearing in both State and National level apprenticeship, in beginning, were in the State level course. If that is so, they form different and distinct class to appear in the national level examination. However, learned counsel states that the course in the State level and National level is one and the same but that makes no difference as the relaxation has been given for the purpose of the Rules in question mentioned in the qualification clause and therefore only the national training certificate is required. If the petitioners are not having the certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training then this Court cannot direct the respondents to recognize the qualiflcation of those petitioners who are having the certificates issued by the State Council for Vocational Training, as equivalent to N.T.C. It is well settled principles of law that a writ of mandamus can be issued to a statutory authority to compel it to perform its statutory obligation. It cannot issue to compel him to pass an order in violation of a statutory provision. (See Hope Textiles Ltd. and another v. Union oflndia and others1). The policy decision of the State Government cannot be examined on any other ground, except if it is contrary to the constitutional 1995 Supp (3) SCC 199 provisions or against the statutory provisions. (See Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) and others v. State of Maharashtra and others2). 13. In W.B. Hpusing Board and others Vs. Brijendra Prasad Gupta and others3, Hon'ble Supreme Court observred as under: <(32. The courts normally do not interfere in the policy matters of the State. If, however, the policy so formulated is against the mandate of the Constitution or any statutory provision it can certainly be tested on the principles of judicial review. When an act falls within the policy of the State which has been formulated for the benefit of the poor and needy and which policy cannot be faulted, the court should stay its hands and need not examine the details minutely with a magnifying glass to find some fault here and thee unless there are allegations of mala fides. An overall view is to be taken of the matter and this potent weapon ofjudicial review cannot be used indiscriminately.9' 14. Unless a policy or action is unconstitutional or the order is abuse of the power, the Court should not interfere in such matters. (See Federation of Railway Officers Association and others v. Union oflndia4). 15. In All India ITDC Workers' Union and others Vs. ITDC and others5, Hon'ble Supreme Court obsen;red as under:- <(23. ........In our opinion, the present writ petitions filed by the employees merit to be dismissed since disinvestment was a policy decision of the Government of India. This Court also has held that thesaid policy decision should be least interfered with in judicial review and that the government employees have no absolute right under Articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and that the Government can abolish the post itself." 2 (1996)98cc 633 3 (1997) 6 SCC 207 4 (2003) 4 SCC 289 5 (2006) 10SCC66 16. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has already submitted that the Rules 2005 and the subsequent amendments have been made in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor and the Central Government's instructions are only guidelines. 17. HonlDle Supreme Court in All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others6 has held that <(The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in/? Further, "Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies/' Para 32 of this decision reads as under : <(32. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four-year advance diploma-holders who had passed the entry-level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one-time measure was extended for ' (2009) 11 SCC 726 10 18. several years and was also extended to post diploma-holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their carrier prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education. ?? In view of the above none of the ground is tenable in the eyes of law. The writ petitions i.e. W.P.(S) Nos. 5641, 5674, 5678 and 5711 of 2010 fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge