Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 200

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
SANJAY K. DIXIT AND OTHERS – Appellants
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No.1961 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31539 of 2012 ]
WITH
JAIPRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1962 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 33506 of 2012 ]
WITH
HARINDER SINGH TOMAR – Appellant
Versus
ATUL KUMAR SHARMA – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1963 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8945 of 2013 ]
WITH
JAHANGEER KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1964 of 2019[ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9419 of 2013 ]
WITH
SACHIDANAND PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1965 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14853 of 2013 ]
WITH
AJAY KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1966 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22782 of 2013 ]
Decided On : 22-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Dr. J. P. Dhanda, Advocate, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, Advocate, Mr. Vineet Dhanda, Advocate, Mr. Naushad Alam Usmani, Advocate, Mr. Gopi Chand, Advocate, Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Advocate, Ms. Reetu Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Nihal Ahmad, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Yadav, Advocate, Ms. Neena Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Alok Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Advocate, Ms. Mamta Jain, Advocate, Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, Advocate, Ms. Divya Garg, Advocate, Mr. Somesh Arora, Advocate, Mr. Sonal Jain, Advocate, Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Gopi Chand Nagar, Advocate, Mr. C.K.Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, Ms. Manju Singh, Advocate, Mr. Tarun Verma, Advocate, Mr. Aviral Kashyap, Advocate and Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocate, Mr. Punya Garg, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Jain, Advocate, Ms. Anusha Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, Advocate, Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, Advocate, Mr. Alok Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Rabin Majumder, Advocate, Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, Advocate, Mr. Syed Mohammed Aatif, Advocate, Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Raju Sonkar, Advocate, Mr. Arun Adlakha, Advocate, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Advocate, Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Advocate and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINTS
In recruitment process rules cannot be relaxed without informing the candidates.
Final relief in a case can be different from the ratio decidendi.

Headnote:(a) U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995 – Rule 45 – Recruitment – Rule and advertisement silent on power to relax Rules – Authorities relaxing essential condition of submission of DOEACC certificate – Held, rules cannot be relaxed without informing the candidates – Provision of the rules cannot be ignored. (Para 8)
       (2011) 12 SCC 85 – Relied upon
       (b) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – High Court deciding that rules cannot be relaxed and DOEACC certificate must have been submitted by the due date – However, giving relief of first relaxation up to 28th March, 2012 on the ground that DOEACC notified result on 10th March, 2012 for which candidates were not at fault – Held, no error – Final relief in a case can be different from the ratio decidendi. (Para 9, 11)
       (2009) 3 SCC 227; (2007) 3 SCC 720 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       An advertisement was issued inviting applications for filling up 2,974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) by the Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh. Certificate given by the Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC) at the time of interview was compulsory. A large number of candidates who attended the interview could not produce the DOEACC certificate. On the said account, several representations were made to the Chairman and Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation requesting for extension of time for submitting the DOEACC certificate and to permit such of those candidates who were found meritorious, to participate in the interview without submitting the DOEACC certificate. This request was acceded and candidates were permitted to participate in the interviews, without DOEACC certificate, subject to their submitting the certificate within a period of three months. However, it was made clear that the appointment letters would be issued to such candidates only after they submit the certificates.
       The time for submission of the certificate was extended from time to time. Finally the recruitment process was concluded.
       Unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions challenging the selections on the ground that the select list contained the names of candidates who could not submit the DOEACC certificates at the time of interview. They also sought for a direction to exclude such candidates and publish a revised list. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.
       The Division Bench partly allowed the appeals by holding that those candidates who submitted the DOEACC certificate prior to 31stMarch, 2012 were entitled to be included in the select list. The learned Division Bench further concluded that all candidates who produced the certificates after 31stMarch, 2012 were not eligible for appointment.
       Finding of the Court:
       In recruitment process rules cannot be relaxed without informing the candidates.
       Final relief in a case can be different from the ratio decidendi.
       Result: Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT

L. Nageswara Rao

Leave granted.

1. All the above Appeals pertain to the selection and appointment to the post of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) in the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation. An advertisement was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up 2,974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) by the Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh on 4th March, 2011. The eligibility criteria according to the said advertisement was that a candidate should have two years National/State level professional certificate in Electrician Trade with High School from Board of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent with Science and Math subjects. In addition, production of Course on Computer Concept (CCC) certificate given by the Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC) (hereinafter referred to as 'DOEACC certificate'), at the time of interview was compulsory. 16,712 persons applied for selection to 2,974 posts which were advertised. Out of 13,576 candidates who appeared in the written examination conducted on 7th August, 2011, 6,218 persons qualified. 5,687 persons appeared for the interviews which were conducted from 28th November, 2011 to 28th December, 2011. A large number of candidates who attended the interview could not produce the DOEACC certificate. On the said account, several representations were made to the Chairman and Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation wherein a request was made for extension of time for submitting the DOEACC certificate and to permit such of those candidates who were found meritorious, to participate in the interview without submitting the DOEACC certificate. A decision was taken by the Chairman and Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation to permit candidates without DOEACC certificate to participate in the interviews, subject to their submitting the certificate within a period of three months. However, it was made clear that the appointment letters would be issued to such candidates only after they submit the certificates.

2. The extension of time for submission of DOEACC certificate expired on 28th March, 2012 and the process of recruitment was conducted. The result could not be declared due to the ban on recruitment by the Government. Such of those candidates who could not submit their certificates before 28th March, 2012 approached the Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation and requested for further extension. Pursuant to a decision taken by the Corporation on 19th April, 2012, time for submission of the certificate was further extended by three months. The results of the selection to the posts of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) were announced on 21stMay, 2012. Candidates who did not produce the DOEACC certificate were informed that they should submit the certificate by 31st July, 2012 failing which their selection would stand cancelled automatically. Unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions challenging the selections that were notified on 21st May, 2012. The grievance of the Writ Petitioners was that the select list contained the names of candidates who could not submit the DOEACC certificates at the time of interview. They also sought for a direction to exclude such candidates and publish a revised list. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.

3. The learned Single Judge relied upon Rule 45 of the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995 to hold that the Chairman was competent to relax the Rules. He observed that there was nothing wrong in the exercise of the power of relaxation as the Chairman/ Managing Director of the Corporation relaxed the Rule after a thorough consideration of several representations made on behalf of the candidates. The submission made on behalf of the Writ Petitioners that the relaxation of the Rule could not have been done after the selection process commenced and that suc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 200

IMPORTANT POINTSIn recruitment process rules cannot be relaxed without informing the candidates.Final relief in a case can be different from the ratio decidendi.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINTS
In recruitment process rules cannot be relaxed without informing the candidates.
Final relief in a case can be different from the ratio decidendi.