Navigating Multiple Cyber Fraud FIRs: Jurisdiction, Distinct Transactions, and the Limits of Article 32

Service Law: Balancing Fairness and Executive Discretion in ITI Instructor Recruitment

The present batch of civil appeals arose from a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the recruitment process of Instructors in Government Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the 2014 Rules. The core controversy revolved around whether the State erred in diluting the Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate from a mandatory essential qualification to a mere preferential/desirable qualification, contrary to Central Government directions. While the Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the State regarding the general bar on challenging a selection process after participation, it closely examined the selection records. The Court discovered that the Selection Committee had arbitrarily introduced unauthorized cut-off marks to screen out candidates instead of adhering strictly to the statutory shortlisting mechanism outlined in Rule 16 of the 2014 Rules. Noting that substantial vacancies remained unfilled and that the appellants were subjected to arbitrary treatment midway through the selection, the Supreme Court invoked its powers to grant meaningful relief by directing their consideration and appointment against vacant or newly created supernumerary posts.

• Challenge to Rules and Participation:
  • Appellants—holders of CITS certificates—challenged the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, and subsequent advertisements for diluting the mandatory CITS certificate requirement.
  • The Supreme Court upheld the State’s preliminary objection that candidates who participate in a selection process without initial demur are normally estopped from challenging the rules or the process later.
• Arbitrariness and Unauthorized Shortlisting:
  • Despite the estoppel rule, the Court held that candidates are not barred from challenging a process if blatant illegality or arbitrariness is demonstrated.
  • Rule 16(3)(b)(i) of the 2014 Rules permitted shortlisting only by limiting candidates to four times the number of vacancies when applications were received in large numbers, using marks secured under academic/technical components.
  • The Selection Committee/State acted arbitrarily by superimposing an unwritten cut-off threshold to screen out candidates prior to interviews, resulting in a large number of unfilled vacancies. This amounted to changing the rules of the game midway.
• Availability of Vacancies and Relief:
  • Official legislative assembly figures confirmed that thousands of instructor posts remained vacant, countering the State’s initial claims.
  • Deciding that denying relief solely due to the passage of time would cause injustice, the Supreme Court set aside the arbitrary exclusion and allowed the appeals with specific directions.
• Court Directions:
  • Appellants, members of the registered society, and impleaded applicants are granted liberty to approach the appointing authority within two weeks with a copy of the judgment.
  • The respondents must conduct interviews for these candidates, determine inter-se merit as per rules, and verify original qualifications and antecedents.
  • Eligible candidates are to be appointed against currently vacant posts, or through the creation of supernumerary posts if eligible candidates exceed available vacancies.

Appointments will be given with prospective effect within four months, entitling appointees to service benefits (excluding back wages, seniority, and promotion), along with future eligibility for pension and gratuity.

2026 INSC 741

Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (along with connected appeals) (D.O.J. 24.07.2026)

2026 INSC 741 click here to view full text of judgment