The Supreme Court recently held that Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited had “committed a serious error” in terminating the services of duly selected candidates possessing the Computer Knowledge Certificate at the time of interview, as required under the announcement of September 6, 2014 published for recruitment. Technical Level II (Electrical) Vacancy in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited

As for candidates who did not have the certificate even on the date of the interview, the same cannot be said.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan was hearing the present appeal seeking direction for reappointment of candidates to the post of Level II Technician (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (Respondent). It held that the respondent had misinterpreted the judgment of the single judge of the Allahabad High Court, which directed the respondent to redraw the selection list by restricting it to those candidates who had brought the certificate at the time of interview.

Exercising extraordinary powers of complete justice under Section 142, the Court directed that the candidates who possessed/produced the CCC certificate at the time of interview and were part of the original selection list be reinstated. The Court added that they should be entitled to inclusion in the seniority list based on their position as per the original selection list.

Brief facts

According to the brief facts, the respondents passed the UP State Power Parishad Operational Employees Cadre Service Regulations, 1995, promulgated by the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board under of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, to fill up technician posts. II.

With the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, the UP State Electricity Board ceased to exist and was replaced by the respondent. The Regulations, 1999 were amended on 29 January 2011, such that it became necessary for Grade II technicians to hold a certificate of 80 hours of coursework in computer concepts (CCC certificate) issued by the Department of Electronics and Computer Science Course Accreditation (DOEACC) (subsequently renamed the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology). The amended regulations required the same certificate to be produced at the time of the interview.

Subsequently, this requirement was amended in November 2011 and the respondent stated that an IT eligibility qualification equivalent to the CCC certificate issued by the DOEACC would also be accepted.

The applicants in the present appeals were named following an announcement dated September 6, 2014, which called for applications for 2,211 grade II technician positions. It was stated that the CCC certificate or its equivalent was one of the compulsory qualifications.

The candidates were selected according to the shortlist dated July 14, 2015 and received appointment letters. On July 25, 2015, the unsuccessful candidates approached the Allahabad High Court seeking cancellation of the selection list dated July 14, 2015 and revision of the selection list excluding those who did not have the certificate CCC or those who obtained it after September. December 30, 2014, i.e. after the last publication date.

What did the Allahabad High Court say?

The Single Judge High Court, in an order dated October 7, 2017, set aside the selection list to the extent that it included the candidates who did not have the certificate and directed the respondent to redraw the list by restricting it to candidates who possessed the required qualifications. certificate. She also spoke out against self-certification of candidates.

On May 13, 2018, the respondent Electricity Service Commission published the list of candidates whose selection was found not to be in compliance with the eligibility according to the High Court. However, this also included candidates who possessed the certificate on the date of interview on the grounds that they did not possess the certificate on the last date of submission of the application. The appointment was canceled by a termination letter dated May 13, 2018.

On the other hand, the petitioners preferred to file a petition before the Allahabad High Court. On May 9, 2019, the Division Bench allowed the special appeal, set aside the October 7 order and directed that the position relating to the entire selection process, including the appointment of the selected incumbents, as it was before the acceptance of the writ petitions, be restored. . He felt that for IT literature, self-certification was still acceptable and therefore the CCC certificate with self-certification could be accepted.

Litigation before the Supreme Court

Against the division bench’s May 9 order, all three appeals were filed in the Supreme Court. On December 16, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals and set aside the division bench’s order.

The Court clarified that the single judge’s order had not canceled the entire selection list as the candidates possessing the required certificate had not lost their position in the selection list. He also clarified that the CCC certificate mentioned in the announcement was the CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.

Subsequently, in another written petition, the petitioners requested the Supreme Court to be reinstated in their services as their dismissal was contrary to the judgment of December 16, 2019. According to their argument, the entire selection process does not should not have been put aside since they had the certificate at the time of the interview. The respondent had set aside the entire process since the candidates had not obtained the certificate by the last filing date, i.e. September 30, 2014. They had only obtained the certificate before the interview, i.e. on July 4, 2015.

The writ petition was dismissed on January 30, 2023, but the Court granted the plaintiffs liberty to make a proper application in the 2019 case. This is how the present appeals proceeded before the Court.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The Supreme Court ruled: “It is therefore clear from the above that those candidates who were in possession of a CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT on the date of the interview and who were part of the selection list on July 14, 2015 n could not have been dismissed by the defendant company.

The Court found that the defendant took contradictory positions on the CCC certificate. He observed: “It also appears that the respondent company has adopted contradictory positions. Before the High Court, it was held that not only candidates holding CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT but also candidates who submitted certificate by self-certification were also entitled to be considered. It is only now that the respondent company is taking a stand that candidates who did not have a CCC certificate on September 30, 2014, i.e. the last date of application, could not be considered as eligible candidates. This position is contrary not only to its announcement of September 6, 2014 but also to the memorandum from the office of the Board of Directors of January 29, 2011 by which the 1995 Regulations were amended.“

Case Details: MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9026 FROM 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 876

Appearances: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari and Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee (for the applicants) and Senior Advocate SK Saxena (for the respondent)

Click here to read the order