Supreme Court Says Eligible Candidates Cannot Be Denied Government Jobs Through an Unauthorised Cut-Off; Orders Fresh Interviews Despite Recruitment Being Over a Decade Old
ITI Instructor Candidates Were Excluded Without Interview by a Cut-Off Not Found in Recruitment Rules; Supreme Court Directs Their Appointment Against Vacant Posts
Facts
The appeals concerned recruitment to the posts of Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes in Uttar Pradesh.
Industrial Training Institutes were established to provide vocational education and enhance the skills of the country’s workforce. At the relevant time, standards for vocational training were prescribed by the Directorate General of Employment and Training under the Union Ministry of Labour.
On 24 July 1996, the Central Government issued directions enhancing the qualifications required for appointment as vocational instructors. One of the prescribed essential qualifications was a one-year certificate under the Craft Instructor Training Scheme, commonly known as the CITS certificate.
The State of Uttar Pradesh accepted these directions and amended the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Instructors Service Rules, 1991, in 2003 to make the CITS certificate mandatory.
However, the State later framed the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes Instructors Service Rules, 2014, superseding the earlier rules. Under the 2014 Rules, the CITS certificate was no longer treated as an essential qualification. It was converted into a preferential qualification.
Candidates without a CITS certificate could also participate in the recruitment process. If appointed, they were required to obtain the qualification within the prescribed period.
The appellants claimed to possess CITS certificates. They were aggrieved because the dilution of the qualification enabled non-CITS candidates to compete with and secure appointments ahead of them.
The appellants applied pursuant to recruitment advertisements issued in 2014 and 2015 for appointment as ITI instructors. The 2014 recruitment advertisement covered approximately 2,498 posts, while the later advertisement concerned 559 posts.
Although the appellants participated in the recruitment processes, they were not selected. They challenged provisions of the 2014 Rules as well as the recruitment advertisements before the Allahabad High Court.
Their principal contention was that Uttar Pradesh could not reduce the CITS certificate from an essential qualification to a merely preferential qualification contrary to the Central Government’s directions dated 24 July 1996.
A total of 43 writ petitions were heard together by the High Court. By a common judgment dated 4 January 2023, the High Court dismissed the petitions.
The candidates and the registered society representing some of them thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the Supreme Court called upon the State to provide details regarding:
- The number of vacancies advertised;
- The number of candidates called for interview;
- The cut-off marks applied;
- Whether the appellants had been called for interviews;
- The number of candidates appointed;
- The number of posts that remained vacant.
The State’s reports showed that the appellants had been excluded from the zone of consideration because they did not secure the qualifying or cut-off marks fixed for being called to the interview.
The Court then examined whether the 2014 Rules authorised the State or the Selection Committee to impose such a cut-off.
Issues
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the 2014 Rules were invalid because they treated the CITS certificate as a preferential rather than an essential qualification.
- Whether candidates who knowingly participated in the recruitment process could subsequently challenge the recruitment rules and advertisements.
- Whether participation in a selection process bars a candidate from challenging arbitrariness or illegality discovered after participation.
- Whether Rule 16 of the 2014 Rules authorised the Selection Committee to prescribe qualifying or cut-off marks for calling candidates to interview.
- Whether the State could exclude otherwise eligible candidates from interviews when the recruitment rules prescribed only one specific method of shortlisting.
- Whether the fixation of an additional cut-off resulted in an impermissible change in the rules of the selection process.
- Whether relief could be granted more than a decade after the recruitment process.
- Whether sufficient vacancies existed to accommodate the appellants.
- What form of relief should be granted without disturbing appointments already made or granting retrospective monetary and service benefits.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants contended that the Central Government had prescribed the CITS certificate as an essential qualification for ITI instructors.
According to them, Uttar Pradesh had previously accepted the Central Government’s directions and incorporated the qualification into the applicable service rules.
They argued that the State could not subsequently dilute the qualification and treat it merely as preferential.
The appellants maintained that candidates possessing specialised instructor-training qualifications were prejudiced because non-CITS candidates were allowed to compete and obtain appointments.
They also challenged the recruitment process on the ground that the State had imposed qualifying or cut-off marks that were not prescribed under the 2014 Rules.
According to the appellants:
- The rules did not permit exclusion of eligible candidates merely on the basis of a separately fixed cut-off;
- Candidates were entitled to be considered for interview in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure;
- The Selection Committee introduced a new threshold without statutory authority;
- The additional cut-off resulted in eligible candidates being excluded even though several vacancies remained unfilled;
- The State effectively changed the selection criteria after the recruitment process had commenced.
The appellants disputed the completeness and accuracy of the information initially furnished by the State. They alleged that the reports did not disclose complete particulars of all appellants and selected candidates, particularly those who did not possess CITS certificates.
They further placed material before the Court to demonstrate that thousands of instructor posts continued to remain vacant.
The appellants argued that they should not be denied relief merely because considerable time had passed. The delay was attributable to the prolonged litigation and not to any fault on their part.
They requested the Court to direct the State to consider them for appointment against the existing vacancies.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State of Uttar Pradesh raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the challenge.
It argued that the appellants had applied pursuant to the advertisements with full knowledge that the CITS certificate had been made only a preferential qualification.
According to the State, the appellants participated in the recruitment process without objection and challenged the rules only after failing to secure selection.
The State relied upon the settled principle that a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process cannot ordinarily turn around after being unsuccessful and challenge its terms.
The State also disputed the availability of sufficient vacancies for accommodating the appellants.
It contended that more than a decade had passed since the advertisements were issued and the candidates had grown older. It suggested that the passage of time and subsequent recruitment developments made appointment impractical.
The State furnished a series of status reports explaining the marks secured by the appellants and the manner in which the selection process had been conducted.
It maintained that candidates had been shortlisted on the basis of academic and technical marks and that only candidates securing the prescribed threshold were called for interview.
However, the reports ultimately established that several advertised posts had remained unfilled and that the appellants had been excluded because of a qualifying or cut-off standard that did not expressly appear in the recruitment rules.
Analysis of the Law
Whether Participation Prevented the Challenge
The Supreme Court initially accepted the general force of the State’s objection.
The Court observed that the appellants knew, before applying, that the CITS certificate had been treated as a preferential rather than essential qualification under the 2014 Rules.
Had they considered the rules or advertisements invalid on that ground, they should ordinarily have challenged them before participating in the recruitment process.
A candidate cannot normally participate in a selection process, wait for its outcome and then challenge the applicable rules after failing to qualify.
The Court, therefore, declined to permit the appellants to directly challenge the validity of the 2014 Rules or the advertisements merely because the CITS requirement had been diluted.
However, the Court drew an important distinction between:
- A challenge to conditions known before participation; and
- A challenge to an illegality or arbitrary action introduced or discovered during the selection process.
The Court held that participation does not prevent a candidate from challenging an illegality that was not apparent at the outset.
A candidate who agrees to participate cannot be presumed to have accepted an unlawful procedure that was neither disclosed in the rules nor foreseeable before the result.
Where arbitrariness or illegality is evident and materially affects the candidate’s selection, the Court may grant relief notwithstanding participation.
Thus, although the appellants could not reopen the known condition relating to the CITS qualification, they were entitled to challenge the unauthorised cut-off applied later by the Selection Committee.
Recruitment Procedure Under Rule 16
Rule 16 prescribed the method for preparing the merit list for direct recruitment.
Under the rule, marks were to be calculated as follows:
- Fifty per cent of the percentage obtained in the High School examination;
- Twenty per cent of the percentage obtained in the National Trade Certificate, National Apprenticeship Certificate, diploma or degree examination;
- Fifteen per cent of the percentage obtained in the CITS or Principles of Teaching examination.
These components together carried a maximum of 85 marks.
Candidates were thereafter to be interviewed. The interview component carried an effective weightage of 15 marks.
The final merit list was to be prepared by adding the academic and technical score out of 85 to the interview score out of 15, resulting in a total score out of 100.
Rule 16 also permitted shortlisting where the number of applications was large. In such a situation, the number of candidates called for interview could be restricted to four times the number of vacancies.
The Court found that this was the only shortlisting mechanism expressly contemplated by the rules.
No Power to Add an Independent Cut-Off
The Court held that Rule 16 did not authorise the Selection Committee to create an additional qualifying or cut-off threshold for deciding who would be interviewed.
Shortlisting was permissible only where applications were received in disproportionately large numbers. Even then, candidates could be restricted to four times the advertised vacancies based on the prescribed marks.
The State could not superimpose a separate minimum score that did not appear in the rules.
The factual position made the State’s action particularly arbitrary.
The 2014 advertisement concerned 2,498 vacancies, but offer letters were issued to only around 2,200 candidates. A similar situation occurred in the subsequent recruitment.
Thus, the State was not faced with a surplus of candidates requiring aggressive shortlisting. On the contrary, a substantial number of advertised vacancies remained unfilled.
Despite the availability of otherwise eligible candidates, the State excluded them from interviews by applying an unauthorised cut-off.
The Court held that where the rule-making authority has deliberately provided one method of shortlisting, the Selection Committee cannot invent an additional method.
Administrative authorities must follow recruitment rules exactly. They cannot supplement, alter or override the rules through executive criteria not found in the statutory framework.
Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway
The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not have anticipated that the State would depart from the recruitment rules.
When they applied, they were entitled to assume that the selection would be conducted according to the procedure prescribed in Rule 16.
The unauthorised cut-off was applied during the recruitment process and resulted in their exclusion before the interview stage.
The Court characterised this as changing the rules of the game midway.
The State could not defend the illegality by saying that the appellants had participated in the process. Participation did not amount to consent to a subsequently introduced unlawful criterion.
The arbitrary threshold vitiated the selection process insofar as it resulted in the non-consideration of the appellants.
Judicial Review of Recruitment Decisions
The judgment reiterates that courts do not ordinarily interfere with recruitment policy or selection criteria merely because another method might be preferable.
However, judicial review is warranted where:
- The selection authority acts contrary to statutory rules;
- An eligibility condition is introduced without legal authority;
- Candidates are excluded through undisclosed criteria;
- The procedure becomes arbitrary or discriminatory;
- The rules are altered after commencement of the process;
- State action violates equality under Article 14.
The Court did not decide the larger constitutional validity of the 2014 Rules.
Instead, it granted relief on the narrower and sufficient ground that the selection procedure actually adopted was contrary to Rule 16 and arbitrary.
Precedent Analysis
Candidate Who Participates Cannot Ordinarily Challenge Selection
The Court acknowledged the established service-law principle that a candidate who participates in a recruitment process with knowledge of its terms cannot ordinarily challenge those terms after being unsuccessful.
This principle prevents candidates from taking a chance in a selection and later questioning the process only because the result was unfavourable.
The principle applied to the appellants’ challenge against the 2014 Rules and advertisements because the preferential status of the CITS certificate was known to them when they applied.
Accordingly, the Court did not permit them to challenge the recruitment merely on the ground that non-CITS candidates were made eligible.
Exception Where Illegality or Arbitrariness Is Discovered
The Court recognised an equally important exception.
Participation does not validate an illegality that was not disclosed before the process began. Nor does it prevent a candidate from challenging arbitrariness that becomes apparent only after results are declared.
A candidate cannot be considered to have waived the right to challenge:
- An undisclosed cut-off;
- A method of shortlisting contrary to rules;
- An unauthorised alteration of eligibility;
- A selection process vitiated by manifest illegality.
The Court applied this exception because the appellants could not reasonably have known that the State would create a cut-off not contemplated by Rule 16.
Their participation, therefore, did not bar relief.
Statutory Recruitment Rules Must Be Followed Strictly
The Court’s reasoning rests on the settled doctrine that once recruitment rules prescribe a particular procedure, the appointing authority must follow that procedure.
What cannot be done directly under the rules cannot be achieved indirectly through administrative instructions or selection-committee decisions.
The Selection Committee had no power to add a second screening mechanism beyond the one expressly permitted.
The resulting exclusion was therefore unlawful.
No Automatic Appointment Merely Because Selection Was Defective
The Court also recognised that proof of illegality does not automatically entitle every candidate to appointment.
Relief depends on:
- The existence of vacancies;
- Possession of the required qualifications;
- Inter-se merit;
- Completion of the remaining selection stages;
- Verification of antecedents;
- Practical consequences of the passage of time.
For that reason, the Court directed interviews and reconsideration rather than granting unconditional appointments to all appellants.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the recruitment process had not been conducted strictly in accordance with the 2014 Rules.
The appellants had been excluded from interviews because they failed to meet qualifying or cut-off marks imposed by the State or Selection Committee.
However, Rule 16 did not provide for such a minimum threshold.
The rule permitted restriction of candidates to four times the number of vacancies only when applications were received in large numbers.
The State’s own data showed that the number of appointments was lower than the advertised vacancies. Therefore, this was not a case where an overwhelming number of eligible candidates required further screening.
The Court observed that the State had advertised 2,498 vacancies in the 2014 process but issued appointment offers to only approximately 2,200 candidates.
A considerable number of posts remained vacant despite the availability of eligible candidates.
The unauthorised cut-off therefore served no legitimate purpose under the rules. Instead, it excluded candidates and caused public posts to remain vacant.
The Court found the process arbitrary for three principal reasons:
- The additional cut-off had no foundation in the 2014 Rules.
- The rules already contained a complete mechanism for shortlisting.
- The cut-off excluded candidates despite the fact that vacancies exceeded the number of candidates ultimately appointed.
The Court held that the State could not rely upon the appellants’ participation to validate this illegality. The appellants could not have predicted that the Selection Committee would depart from the prescribed procedure.
The Court therefore concluded that the appellants had suffered arbitrary treatment and that their exclusion from the recruitment process was legally unsustainable.
Availability of Vacancies
The Court considered whether appointments could practically be directed after more than ten years.
The appellants relied upon proceedings of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
In response to a legislative question, the concerned Minister had stated that, out of 7,768 sanctioned instructor posts in government ITIs, approximately 5,220 posts were vacant in 2023.
The State did not file the specific affidavit sought by the Court to rebut this position.
Its subsequent written submissions stated that 5,507 instructors were working against 7,768 sanctioned posts.
This meant that a substantial number of instructor positions still remained vacant.
The Court therefore found that the passage of time did not make relief impossible.
It acknowledged that the appellants had aged during the prolonged litigation. However, denying them relief merely because they had grown older would reward the State’s arbitrary action and cause further injustice.
At the same time, the Court decided that the relief had to be moulded carefully so as not to grant undue retrospective advantages.
Relief Granted
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
Approach to the Appointing Authority
The appellants, impleaded candidates and eligible members of the registered society were granted liberty to approach the appointing authority with a copy of the judgment within two weeks.
Proof of Society Membership
Candidates claiming through the registered society were required to prove that they were valid members of the society on the date on which the society filed the writ petition.
Consideration Against Existing Vacancies
The candidates were to be considered for recruitment against posts presently vacant in the relevant discipline or trade.
Creation of Supernumerary Posts
Where the number of eligible appellants exceeded the number of available vacancies in a particular trade or discipline, the State was directed to create supernumerary posts for them.
A supernumerary post is an additional post created to accommodate a person without disturbing the regular sanctioned strength or existing incumbents.
Interviews to Be Conducted
Since the appellants had not been interviewed, the State was directed to hold their interviews at the earliest.
Their inter-se merit was then to be determined according to the applicable recruitment rules.
Appointment Within Four Months
Appointments were to be offered within four months from the date on which the candidates approached the appointing authority.
Verification of Eligibility
Appointment was made subject to verification that each candidate possessed the required qualifications on the date of the original application.
The State was also permitted to verify the candidates’ antecedents.
Reasoned Order for Rejection
Where appointment was declined to any candidate, the appointing authority was required to pass a reasoned order and communicate it without delay.
Prospective Appointment
Appointments were to operate prospectively.
The candidates were not granted appointment from the date of the original recruitment process.
No Back Wages, Seniority or Promotion Benefits
The successful candidates were not entitled to:
- Back wages;
- Retrospective seniority;
- Retrospective promotion.
However, once appointed, they would receive the ordinary service benefits available prospectively.
Pension and Gratuity
The candidates would be eligible for pension if they satisfied the pension rules prevailing after appointment.
They would also be entitled to gratuity on retirement if gratuity was payable to similarly situated instructors and they fulfilled the applicable conditions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
It did not finally adjudicate the validity of the 2014 Rules insofar as they made the CITS certificate a preferential qualification.
The Court held that the appellants, having knowingly participated in the recruitment process, could not ordinarily challenge that known condition after being unsuccessful.
Nevertheless, their challenge to the actual selection process was maintainable because the State had introduced an arbitrary qualifying or cut-off score that was not authorised by Rule 16.
The Court held that the Selection Committee could not impose an additional screening threshold when the rules prescribed only one method of shortlisting.
The unauthorised cut-off excluded otherwise eligible candidates from interviews and caused several advertised posts to remain vacant.
The Court therefore directed that the appellants be interviewed and considered for prospective appointment against existing vacancies. It further directed the creation of supernumerary posts where necessary.
The judgment protects the integrity of statutory recruitment procedures by holding that the Government cannot alter or supplement selection criteria midway through the process.
At the same time, it balances equities by denying retrospective seniority, back wages and promotions while preserving prospective appointment, pension and gratuity benefits.
Key Takeaways
- A candidate who knowingly participates in a recruitment process cannot ordinarily challenge its disclosed terms after failing.
- This rule does not prevent a challenge to an illegality that was undisclosed or introduced during the selection process.
- A selection committee cannot create a qualifying cut-off unless the applicable recruitment rules authorise it.
- Where rules prescribe a specific method of shortlisting, no additional screening mechanism can be imposed administratively.
- Leaving public posts vacant by unlawfully excluding eligible candidates may amount to arbitrary State action.
- The rules of a recruitment process cannot be altered midway to the disadvantage of candidates.
- Passage of time does not automatically defeat relief where candidates have continuously pursued legal remedies and vacancies remain available.
- Courts may direct reconsideration and interviews rather than automatic appointment.
- Supernumerary posts may be created to accommodate successful litigants without displacing existing employees.
- Relief can be prospective, excluding back wages, retrospective seniority and promotions while preserving future service benefits.
Case Details
Case: Arvind Kumar & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, with connected appeals
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 741
Case Numbers: Civil Appeal Nos. 8257–8259 of 2026, Civil Appeal Nos. 8260–8263 of 2026
Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: 24 July 2026
Result: Appeals allowed. The State was directed to interview and consider the eligible appellants for prospective appointment against existing vacancies, create supernumerary posts where necessary, and complete the process within four months. No back wages, retrospective seniority or promotion were granted
