AMENDED WMT PETITION INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.S. 2699/2008 PETCTIONER: RESPaNDENTS: l. Vidya Bhushan Patel Aged about 25 years S/o Sri Chandra Bhaii Patel R/o 544/3, Ashish Nagar Phase 2 (East) St. no. 5 Risali, Bhilai, District DURG, Chhatdsgarh 2. Giteshwai Kiimar Sao Aged about 29 years S/o Sri Dashru Ram Sao R/o St. no. 6, Quarters number 2-c Sector 6, Bhilai District DURG, Chhattisgarh VERSUS l. State of ChhattisgaTh Thiough fhe secretary, department of Higher and Technical Education, DKS Bhavan Mantralaya, RAIPUR Secretary, Manpower and Planning Mantralaya, DKS.Bhawan RAIPUR, Chhattisgarh Director, Employment and Training Women Polytechnic Campus Bairan Bazar RAIPUR, Chhattisgarh 4. Union of India Through the Director General/Secretary (DG E&I) Ministry ofLabour, Government oflndia NEW DELHI 5. Chhattisgarh 'Professional Exainination Board, Through the ControUer C-i68, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (CG) PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WMTS OF MANDAMUS AB[D CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WKTTS AND ^l*ii^-§t^:-3^ EE0;i5F.^^';fi^i¥!^?ffi;^;[K. IBtn y^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. JJ. W.P. (S) N0.2699/2008 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Vs Vidya Bhushan Patel& another State ofC.G. and others Present: Mr. Abhinav Khandekar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1 to 3. Mrs. F. Mirza, Asst. Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4, Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate for respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 30th July, 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard on I.A. dated 30.7.2010, application for taking documents on record. 2. Not opposed. 3. The application is allowed and the documents are taken on record. 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of Ctause 2 of Schedule III of Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2005 (for short 'Rules, 2005') 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 Instructors 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 tnstitutes and the same were accepted by the Central Government and vide circular dated 24.7.1996 all the concerned were directed for necessary amendments in the recruitment rules. Though the respondent No.l-State amended the Rules, ^ «<«1 "i- @SBi ?,;''ft^^ ---« 2005 but the qualifications fixed for the post of Training Officer Grade III mentioned in Schedule-111 are contrary to the instructions issued by the Central Government vide circular dated 24.7.1996. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that subject of technicai education falls under Entry 66 of List-1 of the seventh schedule of Constitution of India and that the executive instructions issued by the Central Governmenfare binding 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 infact binding upon the State in respect of the qualifications fixed for the post of Vocational Instructors in the Industrial Training Institutes and Centers. The qualification fixed 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 quatifications 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 orderas to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge