Arvind Kumar & Orsv.State of UP & Ors

Participation Does Not Immunize Arbitrariness: The Supreme Court on Recruitment Irregularities

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 741

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: 24 July, 2026

Area of Law: Service Law, Constitutional Law, Recruitment Rules, Administrative Law

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court addressed a significant service law dispute concerning the recruitment of Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) in Uttar Pradesh. The primary legal challenge was against the 2014 Rules which made the Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate a "preferential qualification" rather than an "essential qualification," contrary to Central Government directions issued in 1996.

While the Court did not ultimately decide the validity of the 2014 Rules, it found that the selection process was vitiated by arbitrariness. The Selection Committee had fixed cut-off marks for shortlisting candidates—a criterion not prescribed in the 2014 Rules—resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled despite available eligible candidates. The Court held that even though the appellants had participated in the selection process, they could challenge it because the illegality was "writ large" and they could not have anticipated the mid-stream rule change.

The Court granted relief to the appellants by directing their consideration against existing vacancies, creation of supernumerary posts if necessary, and prospective appointment with limited benefits (excluding back wages, seniority, and promotion).

Relevant Facts

• Background of ITI Recruitment: The Industrial Training Institutes were established in the 1950s to provide vocational education. The Directorate General of Employment & Training under the Ministry of Labour issued directions on 24th July 1996 requiring CITS certificate as an essential qualification for Vocational Instructors.

• 2003 Amendment: The State of Uttar Pradesh amended the 1991 Rules to incorporate CITS certificate as a mandatory qualification.

• 2014 Rules: The State framed new rules in 2014, making CITS certificate a "preferential qualification" instead of "essential qualification." Candidates without CITS could be considered but had to obtain it within three years of joining.

• Advertisements: Two advertisements were issued—Advertisement No. 2/2014 for 2,498 posts and Advertisement No. 20(7)/2015 for 559 posts.

• Appellants' Participation: The appellants, who held CITS certificates, applied under these advertisements despite knowing that CITS was only a preferential qualification.

• Selection Process: The Selection Committee fixed cut-off marks for shortlisting candidates for interview, a criterion not found in the 2014 Rules. This resulted in many eligible candidates, including the appellants, being excluded.

• Vacancies: Despite the advertisements, a substantial number of vacancies remained unfilled. As of 2023, out of 7,768 sanctioned posts, 5,220 were vacant. By May 2026, 5,507 Instructors were in position out of 7,768 sanctioned posts.

• High Court Decision: The Allahabad High Court dismissed 43 writ petitions challenging the selection process vide judgment dated 4th January 2023.

• Supreme Court Proceedings: The Court called for detailed particulars from the State regarding the selection process, candidates called for interview, cut-off marks, and vacancies. The State filed multiple status reports.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the 2014 Rules are invalid for contravening the Central Government's executive directions dated 24th July 1996, which required CITS certificate to be a mandatory essential qualification?

2. Whether the appellants are estopped from challenging the selection process having participated in it with full knowledge that CITS certificate was only a preferential qualification?

3. Whether the Selection Committee's fixation of cut-off marks for shortlisting candidates for interview was arbitrary and contrary to the 2014 Rules?

4. Whether the appellants are entitled to any relief despite the passage of time and their participation in the selection process?

Legal Framework

• Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training (Instructors) Services Rules, 1991: The original rules governing recruitment of ITI Instructors.

• Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules 2014: The impugned rules which made CITS certificate a "preferential qualification" under Rule 9(B) with a proviso allowing consideration of non-CITS candidates who would obtain the qualification within the prescribed period.

• Rule 16 of the 2014 Rules: Prescribed the selection procedure, including:
  Marks allocation: 50% of High School marks, 20% of NTC/NAC/Diploma/Degree marks, 15% of CITS/POT marks (total 85 marks)
  Interview carrying 15% weightage (converted from 100 marks)
  Shortlisting provision: Where applications are received in large numbers, candidates called for interview shall be four times the number of vacancies

• Rule 17(3) of the 2014 Rules: Required appointed persons to complete CITS/POT and CCC courses within three years from joining, failing which they would not receive their first increment.

• Central Government Directions dated 24th July 1996: Issued by the Directorate General of Employment & Training requiring CITS certificate as an essential qualification for Vocational Instructors.

• Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Training Institute (Instructor and Foreman Instructor) Service Rules 2021: Superseded the 2014 Rules and made National Craft Instructor Certificate an essential qualification.

Important Precedents Relied Upon

The judgment does not explicitly cite specific case laws in the provided extract. However, the Court referenced the following established legal principles:

• Principle of Estoppel/Waiver: The Court acknowledged the general rule that a candidate who participates in a selection process with knowledge of its terms cannot ordinarily challenge the process later.

• Exception to the Rule of Participation: The Court recognized the well-settled exception that a candidate can challenge a selection process despite participation where arbitrariness or illegality is writ large in the process. This is a crucial principle reaffirmed by the Court.

• Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Implicitly applied in recognizing that candidates could not have anticipated the Selection Committee changing the rules mid-process through fixation of cut-off marks.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

On the Preliminary Objection of Estoppel

The Court found the State's objection that the appellants were estopped from challenging the process "fair and tenable." Since the appellants applied with full knowledge that CITS certificate was only a preferential qualification, they should have challenged the 2014 Rules and advertisements beforehand.

However, the Court invoked the well-settled exception: where arbitrariness or illegality in the selection process is writ large, a candidate can challenge it despite participation. The appellants could not be said to have accepted the illegality merely by participating, as they could not have anticipated the Selection Committee's arbitrary action.

On the Arbitrariness in Selection Process

The Court conducted a detailed analysis of Rule 16 of the 2014 Rules:

• Rule 16(3)(b)(i) permits shortlisting only where applications are received "in large numbers" and even then, the Selection Committee can restrict candidates called for interview to four times the number of vacancies.

• The State's Action: The Selection Committee fixed cut-off marks for shortlisting candidates for interview—a criterion not mentioned in the Rules. This resulted in:
  Only 2,200-odd candidates receiving offer letters against 2,498 vacancies in 2014
  Vacancies remaining unfilled despite available eligible candidates

• The Court's Finding: The Selection Committee/State superimposed an additional eligibility threshold not found in the Rules. This was arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment procedure prescribed by the 2014 Rules.

• Mid-Rule Change: The Court emphasized that the "rules of the game" could not be changed mid-way to the detriment of candidates. The appellants could not have visualized, prior to declaration of results, that the Selection Committee would not follow the rules.

On Grant of Relief Despite Passage of Time

The Court acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the advertisements were issued. The appellants had grown in age, which "normally diminishes efficiency."

However, the Court granted relief on these grounds:

1. The appellants proved they were subjected to arbitrary treatment

2. A substantial number of vacancies (5,220 as of 2023) were available

3. Denying relief solely because of delay would perpetuate the injustice caused by the State's arbitrary action

Ratio Decidendi and Key Legal Principles

1. Participation in Selection Process Does Not Bar Challenge Where Arbitrariness is Writ Large

While a candidate who participates in a selection process with knowledge of its terms cannot ordinarily challenge it, this rule is not absolute. Where the illegality or arbitrariness is apparent and the candidate could not have anticipated it, the challenge is maintainable. The candidate cannot be said to have accepted an illegality that was not known at the time of participation.

2. Statutory Rules Must Be Followed Strictly in Recruitment

Recruitment authorities cannot superimpose additional eligibility thresholds or shortlisting criteria not prescribed in the statutory rules. The rules of the game cannot be changed mid-process to the detriment of candidates.

3. Fixation of Cut-Off Marks Without Rule Authority is Arbitrary

Where the recruitment rules provide a specific mechanism for shortlisting (e.g., calling candidates four times the number of vacancies when applications are large), the Selection Committee cannot fix cut-off marks as an additional screening criterion, especially when vacancies remain unfilled.

4. State Action Must Be Free from Arbitrariness

The State and its instrumentalities must act reasonably and in accordance with the rules. Arbitrary state action, even in recruitment matters, is amenable to judicial scrutiny and relief.

5. Delay Does Not Immunize Arbitrariness

While courts are cautious in granting relief where significant time has passed, especially in recruitment matters, relief may still be granted where:

• The candidates suffered arbitrary treatment

• Substantial vacancies exist

• Denying relief would perpetuate the injustice

6. Limited Relief in Belated Recruitment Matters

Where relief is granted in stale recruitment matters, courts may impose limitations on benefits:

• Prospective appointment (not from the original date of advertisement)

• No back wages (for the period of delay)

• No seniority (from the original date)

• No promotion benefits (based on retrospective service)

• Benefits from the date of actual appointment (pension, gratuity, etc., subject to qualification)

Important Court Observations

• "The objection sounds to be fair and tenable" – The Court acknowledged the validity of the estoppel objection but carved out an exception.

• "Arbitrariness/illegality in the selection process is writ large" – The Court applied the exception to the rule against post-participation challenges.

• "The rules of the game, mid-way, could not have been changed" – Emphasizing the principle of fair play in recruitment.

• "Much water having flown under the bridge since then" – Acknowledging the passage of time while still finding it appropriate to grant relief.

• "Denying relief to them only because of passage of time would be to perpetuate the injustice" – The Court's rationale for granting relief despite delay.

Final Outcome

Relief Granted:

1. Liberty to Approach: The appellants, members of the Registered Society, and impleaded candidates were granted liberty to approach the appointing authority with a copy of the judgment within two weeks.

2. Verification: Members of the Registered Society must prove their membership was valid on the date of presentation of the writ petition.

3. Consideration for Appointment: The appellants and impleaded candidates shall be considered for recruitment against currently vacant posts in the relevant discipline/trade.

4. Supernumerary Posts: If eligible appellants exceed available vacancies, supernumerary posts shall be created for them in the relevant discipline/trade.

5. Timeline: Appointments shall be offered within four months of approach being made.

6. Prospective Effect: Appointments shall have prospective effect only.

7. Qualification Verification: Subject to scrutiny that the appellants possessed requisite qualifications as on the dates they applied.

8. Antecedent Verification: Subject to verification of antecedents.

9. Interviews: The respondents shall hold interviews of the candidates to determine inter-se merit as per the rules.

10. Reasoned Orders: If appointment is declined to any appellant, a reasoned order must be passed and communicated.

11. Limited Benefits: Upon appointment, appellants will be entitled to all benefits other than back wages, seniority, and promotion while in service.

12. Pension: Appellants will be eligible for pension if they qualify as per prevalent rules.

13. Gratuity: Appellants shall be entitled to gratuity subject to qualification.

The appeals were allowed on the aforesaid terms.

Practical Impact and Legal Strategy

Why the Judgment Matters

1. Reaffirms the Exception to the Participation Rule

This judgment is significant as it clarifies that the rule barring challenges by participants in a selection process is not absolute. Where the arbitrariness or illegality is writ large, and the candidate could not have anticipated it before participating, a challenge is maintainable. This provides a crucial safeguard against arbitrary state action.

2. Checks Arbitrary Shortlisting by Selection Committees

The judgment strongly discourages recruitment authorities from imposing additional eligibility criteria or cut-off marks not prescribed in the statutory rules. This is particularly important where vacancies remain unfilled despite available eligible candidates.

3. Protects Candidates from Mid-Rule Changes

The principle that "the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way" provides protection to candidates who, in good faith, participate in selection processes based on published rules.

4. Balances Justice with Administrative Finality

The judgment strikes a balance between granting relief to aggrieved candidates and respecting the passage of time by providing prospective relief with limited benefits (no back wages, no seniority, no promotion benefits). This approach can be a template for courts dealing with stale recruitment disputes.

How Advocates and Litigants May Rely Upon It

For Candidates in Selection Processes:

• Can challenge arbitrariness in selection even after participation, if the illegality was not apparent at the time of participation

• Can object to recruitment authorities imposing conditions not found in the statutory rules

• Can seek consideration against existing vacancies if arbitrarily excluded

• Can rely on this judgment to seek prospective appointment with limited benefits in stale recruitment matters

For Advocates:

• Cite this judgment to argue against arbitrary shortlisting criteria

• Use the "writ large" exception to overcome objections of waiver/estoppel

• Rely on the principle that statutory rules must be strictly followed

• Cite for the proposition that delay should not automatically defeat justice where arbitrariness is established

For the State/Recruitment Authorities:

• Must ensure strict compliance with statutory recruitment rules

• Cannot impose additional shortlisting criteria without rule authority

• Must be transparent in the selection process to avoid allegations of arbitrariness

Can It Be Cited Before High Courts, Tribunals, or Subordinate Courts?

Yes, absolutely. This is a judgment of the Supreme Court of India (2026 INSC 741) and constitutes a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It can be cited before:

• The Supreme Court of India

• High Courts

• Administrative Tribunals (CAT, State Administrative Tribunals)

• Subordinate courts

• Any authority exercising quasi-judicial functions

Practical Implications for Future Litigation

1. Strategic Consideration: Candidates who participate in selection processes can still challenge the process if the illegality is not apparent at the time of participation. However, the threshold is high—the illegality must be "writ large."

2. Timing of Challenge: The judgment implicitly encourages challenges to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, but provides a safety net for situations where the illegality becomes apparent only after the process concludes.

3. Evidence Requirement: To succeed, candidates must demonstrate that the illegality was not apparent at the time of participation and could not have been anticipated.

4. Relief Framework: The judgment provides a template for relief in stale recruitment matters—prospective appointment, limited benefits, and no retrospective seniority or promotion.

5. Future Recruitment: Recruitment authorities must be cautious in prescribing cut-off marks or shortlisting criteria. Such criteria must be explicitly provided in the recruitment rules.