Supreme Court Upholds ITI Qualification Requirement for Technician-III Posts in Jammu and Kashmir

The case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. revolves around a dispute concerning recruitment eligibility for Technician-III posts in the Power Development Department of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated December 5, 2018, upheld the requirement that candidates must hold an ITI certification in the relevant trade and ruled that higher qualifications, such as diplomas in electrical engineering, do not automatically make a candidate eligible.

The ruling clarified the legal position regarding recruitment qualifications and emphasized that eligibility criteria prescribed in job advertisements must be strictly followed.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to the recruitment of Technician-III in the Power Development Department of Jammu and Kashmir. On February 23, 2013, the Jammu and Kashmir State Service Selection Board (SSSB) issued an advertisement inviting applications for these posts across multiple districts.

The prescribed qualification for Technician-III was:

• Matric with ITI in the relevant trade.

Several diploma holders in electrical engineering, who did not possess an ITI certification, applied for the post. Initially, their applications were accepted, and they were allowed to sit for the written test and interviews. However, after a meeting on January 31, 2015, the SSSB decided that only candidates with an ITI certification in the relevant trade were eligible. Consequently, the appellants were disqualified.

The disqualified candidates challenged the decision, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Considered

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal issues:

• Whether diploma holders in electrical engineering are eligible for the post of Technician-III despite not having an ITI certification.
• Whether the SSSB changed the eligibility criteria after the selection process had begun.
• Whether a higher qualification can substitute for a lower prescribed qualification.

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants, who were diploma holders, argued:

• A diploma is a higher qualification than ITI and should be considered sufficient for eligibility.
• They were allowed to sit for the written test and interview, indicating that the authorities initially accepted their qualifications.
• The decision to disqualify them was arbitrary and amounted to changing the eligibility criteria midway.
• Note 12 of the advertisement stated that additional weightage could be given to higher qualifications, which implied that diploma holders should not be excluded.

Arguments by the Respondents

The SSSB and the state government countered:

• The job advertisement clearly required ITI certification in the relevant trade.
• Diplomas and ITI certifications serve different purposes, and a diploma does not necessarily include ITI training.
• The board’s decision to exclude diploma holders was taken to maintain uniformity and uphold the original eligibility criteria.
• Note 12 only permitted additional weightage for higher qualifications; it did not allow candidates without ITI certification to be considered eligible.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, ruled that the SSSB was justified in requiring ITI certification and rejecting applications from diploma holders. The key observations included:

• “The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility.”
• “Where a particular qualification is prescribed, the appointing authority cannot be compelled to accept a different qualification, even if it is argued to be a ‘higher qualification.’”
• “A diploma in electrical engineering does not automatically presuppose the acquisition of an ITI certification.”
• “Judicial review must tread cautiously when examining recruitment policies. The court cannot expand upon prescribed qualifications unless there is a clear case of arbitrariness.”

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Strict Adherence to Eligibility Criteria: Employers and recruitment boards must follow prescribed qualifications as stated in job advertisements.
• Higher Qualification Does Not Automatically Qualify a Candidate: A diploma does not replace an ITI certification unless explicitly stated.
• Recruitment Policies Are a Matter of Executive Discretion: Courts should not interfere in recruitment criteria unless they violate constitutional principles.
• Errors in Shortlisting Do Not Confer Eligibility: Allowing disqualified candidates to sit for exams or interviews does not make them eligible.

Final Directions

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The SSSB’s decision to disqualify diploma holders was valid.
• The select list prepared by the SSSB was upheld.
• The appellants were not entitled to be considered for Technician-III posts.
• An age relaxation of four years was granted to the appellants for future recruitment.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that prescribed qualifications in recruitment must be strictly followed. It clarifies that a diploma is not automatically equivalent to an ITI certification and that courts should not interfere with recruitment policies unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or unfairness.

Job applicants must ensure that they meet all eligibility requirements before applying. The ruling also serves as a precedent for similar cases where candidates claim equivalence of qualifications without explicit recognition by the recruiting authority.

Petitioner Name: Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors..
Respondent Name: Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Jammu and Kashmir.
Judgment Date: 05-12-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-12-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category