Can Courts Interfere with Statutorily Prescribed Qualifications for Recruitment to Public Posts? Orissa High Court Upholds State’s Power to Prescribe ‘CITS’ as Mandatory for Assistant Training Officers

Orissa High Court reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review over qualifications set by expert/statutory authorities in public recruitment. The decision upholds the overriding effect of the Combined Technical Services Recruitment Examination Rules, 2022, and is binding authority within Odisha for future recruitment challenges.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The judgment clarifies and strengthens that courts will not interfere with qualifications (such as mandatory CITS certification) prescribed in statutory recruitment rules, unless such conditions are shown to be arbitrary, perverse or in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
• Statutory rules under Article 309, with clear overriding clauses, prevail over prior administrative guidelines or notifications.
• Previous litigation on the same grounds (including from abolished tribunals) cannot be reopened, if earlier decisions have attained finality.
• The decision may be cited to resist challenges against changes in qualifications or eligibility in public recruitment, provided they are set by competent authority/statutory rules.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The Court examined the scope of judicial review in prescription of qualifications for government posts, emphasizing that setting eligibility conditions is within the domain of the executive/legislature under Article 309 of the Constitution.
• Noted that the Combined Technical Services Recruitment Examination Rules, 2022 were validly promulgated under constitutional power and contained an overriding clause, expressly superseding prior guidelines and administrative instructions.
• The qualification of CITS, challenged by petitioners, is uniformly applicable and does not create any unjustified discrimination; age relaxation for PTGIs is already provided.
• Reviewed Supreme Court authority (All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society, Tej Prakash Pathak), reiterating that courts are not equipped to evaluate or substitute qualifications laid down by statutory expert bodies, unless prescriptions are arbitrary or violate the law.
• The administrative wisdom of requiring CITS could not be faulted as there existed a sufficient pool of eligible candidates, and the qualification itself had not been shown as irrational.
• The Court observed that prior litigation over similar issues (regularization/eligibility) had already been decided and could not be revisited.
• Concluded that no interference was warranted; the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Challenged introduction of CITS as a mandatory qualification for Assistant Training Officers (ATOs).
• Sought preference/weightage for teaching experience as PTGIs, in addition to already granted age relaxation.
• Argued that the rules were contrary to prior government guidelines and NCVT norms, and that new rules were unnecessary.
• Cited that administrative guidelines (2016/2021) should prevail for recruitment, rather than new statutory rules.

Respondent (OSSC & State)

• Argued that statutory rules (CTSRE Rules, 2022) validly superseded all earlier guidelines and instructions; recruitment must comply with the latest rules.
• Stated that PTGI status cannot be the basis for additional preference beyond what is granted (age relaxation).
• Noted that previous claims for regularization had already been adjudicated and could not be reopened.
• Asserted that prescription of qualifications is a matter within executive discretion and not open to judicial review unless clearly illegal or arbitrary.

Other Respondents (Selected Candidates/Intervenors)

• Opposed special treatment or relaxation for petitioners.
• Argued that uniform applicability of CITS was necessary for fairness; relaxing this standard would itself be discriminatory.
• Supported the primacy of statutory rules in recruitment.

Factual Background

The petitioners, serving as Part Time Guest Instructors (PTGIs) in various Government ITIs in Odisha for over fifteen years, challenged an advertisement (dated 02.11.2022) issued by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission for the recruitment of Assistant Training Officers (ATOs). They sought exemption from or relaxation of a new mandatory qualification: the possession of a Craft Instructors Training Scheme (CITS) certificate, introduced by the Combined Technical Services Recruitment Examination Rules, 2022. Petitioners claimed entitlement to special weightage due to their teaching experience and challenged the vires of the new rules, seeking application of earlier administrative guidelines instead. Interim orders preserved a set number of posts during the litigation.

Statutory Analysis

• The Court analyzed the Combined Technical Services Recruitment Examination Rules, 2022, promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which expressly overrode prior guidelines and executive instructions.
• Referred to Rule 3 and Schedule-I which make the guidelines dated 30.11.2021 statutorily applicable for ATOs’ recruitment.
• Rule 8: Contains an explicit overriding effect, ensuring that the statutory rules prevail in case of any conflict with earlier executive orders.
• The Court held that no violation of constitutional provisions (including Article 14) was made out; the rules were within the authority’s legislative competence.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

There was no dissent; both Hon’ble Judges concurred in reasoning and dismissal of the writ petition.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court authority on courts’ limited role in challenging recruitment qualifications (All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society; Tej Prakash Pathak) was affirmed and applied.