Case: RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF UP

2. An advertisement was issued on 17 th March, 2008 by the Directorate of Training and Employment, Lucknow, U.P . inviting applications for the various posts of Instructors in the Government Industrial Training Institute of the State. The appellant applied for the post of Instructor in the subject of Fitter. The educational eligibility condition prescribed for the said post was a certificate in concerned trade from National Council of Vocational Training for short, NCVT apart from two years? experience in any industry or training/educational institute, either before or after getting instructor training. The appellant applied for such post on the basis of the following educational(a) National Trade Certificate of basic training of one year from September, 1990 to August, 1991 in Mechanical Group imparted by Model Industrial Training Institute for short, MITI, Haldwani;(b) National Trade Certificate of further training of six months from September, 1991 to February, 1992 in Fitter General imparted by MITI, Haldwani; and(c) National Trade Certificate of further training of six months from March, 1992 to August, 1992 in Metrology and Engineering Inspection imparted by MITI, HaldwaniThe appellant was found not eligible for the reason that he does not possess two years course from NCVT. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for the reason that three different courses undertaken by the appellant cannot be treated as equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Rules.

Reasoning: 9. We find that the stand of the State that appellant is not possessed of educational qualifications is not tenable. The eligibility condition is that a candidate must have obtained a certificate in respective trade from NCVT. It is not necessary that a qualification prescribed in the Rules has to be possessed in one certificate10. It is on the basis of such Circular, the Director of Training and Employment of the State has issued Circulars on 18 th August, 1988 and on 9 th April, 1992 that such qualification will be deemed to be equivalent to the National Trade Certificate. Once the educational qualification has been treated to be equivalent by the State Government in the Circulars issued earlier, the stand of the State that appellant is not qualified has no legs to stand. The State itself has treated qualification of basic course in Mechanical Trade Fitter, General Module and Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module equivalent to conventional pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme. Thus, we find that the stand of the State that the appellant was not possessing educational qualification cannot be sustained. The candidature of the appellant was not validly rejected.