Facts
The appellants challenged the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, contending that they unlawfully diluted the requirement of a Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate from an essential qualification to a preferential qualification for recruitment of Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs). The appellants, all CITS certificate holders, had participated in the recruitment process pursuant to advertisements issued in 2014 and 2015, but were not selected. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, following which they approached the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the Court examined whether the recruitment process itself complied with the 2014 Rules.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether the 2014 Rules were invalid for treating the CITS certificate as a preferential rather than an essential qualification.
(b) Whether the Selection Committee could prescribe qualifying or cut-off marks not contemplated by the 2014 Rules, thereby excluding candidates from consideration.
Court's Reasoning
(a) Challenge after Participation
The Court held that the appellants, having participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of the eligibility criteria, were ordinarily estopped from challenging the validity of the 2014 Rules. However, this principle does not apply where the recruitment process itself suffers from manifest arbitrariness or illegality. (Paras 9–11)
(b) Illegality in the Selection Process
The Court found that Rule 16(3)(b)(i) permitted shortlisting only where applications were received in large numbers by restricting candidates called for interview to four times the vacancies. The Rules did not authorise the Selection Committee to prescribe qualifying or cut-off marks for excluding candidates from the interview. Despite vacancies remaining unfilled, candidates, including the appellants, were excluded solely on the basis of cut-off marks introduced without statutory authority. Such action was arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment rules. (Paras 16–19)
(c) Appropriate Relief
The Court observed that a substantial number of Instructor posts continued to remain vacant even at the time of hearing. Since the appellants had been denied consideration due to an illegal selection process, they were entitled to relief. Instead of disturbing appointments already made, the Court moulded the relief by directing fresh consideration of the appellants against existing vacancies, with interviews to be conducted in accordance with the Rules. Appointments, if made, would operate prospectively without back wages, seniority or promotional benefits. (Paras 20–23)
Held
The appeals were allowed. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the appellants for appointment against existing vacancies after conducting interviews in accordance with the 2014 Rules, with appointments to operate prospectively and subject to verification of eligibility and antecedents.
Ratio
While a candidate who participates in a selection process ordinarily cannot challenge it later, such estoppel does not apply where the selection process is vitiated by arbitrariness or illegality. A Selection Committee cannot prescribe qualifying or cut-off marks not authorised by the statutory recruitment rules.
Relevant Para
Para 19
“Failure of the Selection Committee/SoUP to follow the 2014 Rules to the tee, more particularly excluding the appellants by fixing an arbitrary qualifying or cut-off marks in the guise of screening eligible candidates though the vacancies advertised out-numbered candidates prima facie found eligible, cannot be validated merely on the ground that the appellants participated in the selection process. They could not have visualized, prior to declaration/publication of results, that the Selection Committee/SoUP would not follow the rules for selection. The rules of the game, mid-way, could not have been changed by the Selection Committee/SoUP to the detriment of a number of candidates. Since there has been arbitrariness in State action, which has vitiated the process of selection including non-selection of the appellants, this is sufficient for us to consider the question of grant relief to the appellants, without going into the validity of the 2014 Rules.”
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 741
Decided on: 24 July 2026
Case Title: Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dipankar Datta, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.