1 2025:CGHC:18812 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2837 of 2025 1 Annu Shakar D/o Shri Purushottam Kumar Shakar Aged About 32 Years R/o- H.No. B-241, Lakhe Nagar, Dhal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Employment And Training Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 Divisional Joint Director Employment And Training Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 25/04/2025 1. By way of the present Writ Petition, the the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondents to consider the candidature of JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.28 10:25:10 +0530 2 petitioner for appointment on the post of Training Officer(Electrician) and to issue appointment letter within some stipulated time period, as the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that while he was working as trainees in various institutions/departments he was not getting salary through bank account or post office, which is a mandatory requirement according to guidelines issued by the National Council For Vocational Training (for short ‘the NCVT). 2. The facts of the case are as follows:- Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Training Officers. The petitioner submitted his application form as he had the requisite qualifications for the advertised posts. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the written examination. The result was declared and the petitioner was in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner was called for verification of the documents and the list of required documents was also appended to the call letters. The petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities for verification of the documents. Despite verification of documents, the respondent authorities have not issued appointment orders in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit documents pertaining to the mode of payment of salary. It is also stated in the order impugned that according to one of the clauses of guidelines of NCVT, the engaged instructors or trainees should be paid their remuneration/salary only through banks/post offices. It is further stated that the petitioner failed to place on record any document 3 with regard to the requirement as stated in the Management Manual for Industrial Training Institutes. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the condition given in the Management Manual is directory in nature. He would further submit that the object of the instruction is to bring transparency and uniformity in the system. He would contend that to ensure that the trainees get their salary regularly and also on time, this system has been adopted by the NCVT. He would further contend that there is no such provision in the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (for short the Rules of 2014’) and such condition was not incorporated in the advertisement. It is also contended that the Rules of 2014 were amended in the year 2019 and there is no whisper with regard to the requirement as observed by the respondent authorities while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. Mr. Shrivastava would further argue that the petitioner is eligible, qualified and he has been selected by the Recruitment Agency but on account of trivial issues, the appointment order has not been issued yet. Mr. Shrivastava would also argue that the candidature of petitioner was inquired into by the respondent authorities and there is no adverse report against any of the petitioner. He would further state that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps for the issuance of appointment order in favour of eligible candidates. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 He would submit that some of the candidates have worked in other States and to ascertain their credibility, it was necessary on the part of the petitioner to submit documents with regard to the mode of payment of salary. He would further contend that according to the application form, the petitioner was required to submit documents showing the mode of payment of salary, experience certificate, order of appointment etc. He would also contend that the petitioner failed to place on record those documents. He would argue that for transparency and fairness, this decision was taken by the Recruitment Agency. He would fairly admit the fact that there is no such provision either in the Rules of 2014 or 2019 or in the advertisement. He would contend that the respondent authorities after due scrutiny rejected the candidature of the petitioner. It is contended by Mr. Kumar that technical education is the subject of the concurrent list and Rules have been framed by the Union of India and the same is being followed by the State. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the posts of Training Officers pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner was found successful. The petitioner was called for verification of the documents and he was asked to submit documents with regard to his educational qualification, experience, affidavit and salary paid to him but there was no requirement to submit documents with regard to mode of payment of salary. In the advertisement also, there is no such 5 condition. As per the application form, the candidates were required to submit an experience certificate, salary details, appointment order etc. 7. The NCVT issued instructions in the Management Manual for Industrial Trainee Institutes and one of the clauses deals with Payment of Salary to Vocational Instructors of ITIs/ITCs(Regular/Contract basis) through banks/post offices only. 8. The instruction/recommendation is reproduced herein below:- 9. “It was brought to the notice of DGET that some of the ITIs/ITCs are paying very meager salary to instructors appointed on contract basis. As a result, good quality instructors were not attracted to these jobs. Therefore, to bring further transparency and uniformity in the system, it was proposed (in 39th meeting of the Council held on 12th January, 2011) that all instructors(regular/contract basis) engaged in ITIs/ITCs should be paid their remunerations only through banks/post offices. This system should ensure that recommended salaries are paid to these instructors regularly and also on time.” 10. The language of above referred guideline would make it clear that it was issued to bring transparency and uniformity to the recruitment process. One of the objectives was to ensure the payment of recommended salaries regularly on time. As this condition is not mentioned either in the recruitment Rules or in the advertisement, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this instruction / recommendation was directory in nature and its non-compliance will not lead to the rejection of the candidature of any of the candidates. 11. If any of the application forms were found doubtful or incomplete, 6 the recruitment agency or the respondents ought to have conducted an inquiry to ascertain the veracity of entries made in the application form. It is informed that in some of the cases, inquires were conducted and reports are not against the petitioner. 12. The respondent authorities are granted 30 days to scrutinize the candidature of the petitioner with regard to their suitability. The candidature of the petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that he failed to place on record any document with regard to the mode of payment of salary. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to inquire into other criteria, if necessary. There is no need for further inquiry, particularly in the cases where inquiry has already been conducted by the respondent authorities. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of 60 days and thereafter, the respondents are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner/eligible candidates within a period of 15 days. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti