SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 986

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Mukul Kumar Tyagi – Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. of 2024 [@ Diary No. 4407 of 2023] In Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019 With Miscellaneous Application No. of 2024 [@ Diary No. 5682 of 2023] In Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019 Miscellaneous Application No. of 2024 [@ Diary No. 10291 of 2023] In Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019 Civil Appeal No. of 2024 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23273 of 2023]
Decided On : 05-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Gargi Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Oindrilla, Adv. Mr. Arpit Shukla, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishna M. Singh, Adv. Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv. Mr. Deepti Singh, Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dube, Adv. Mrs. Deepti Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajivkumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR Mr. Vikas Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. Mr. K Aditya Singh, Adv. Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR Mr. Manoj Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Garg, Adv. Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Pooja Rathore, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajeshri Nivuratirao Reddy, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment in public service – Recognized qualification is an essential facet of Article 16 of Constitution of India – No rights can be recognized in a candidate aspiring to enter public service on strength of an unrecognized qualification.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 16 – Appointment in public service – Recognized qualification is an essential facet of Article 16 of Constitution of India – No rights can be recognized in a candidate aspiring to enter public service on strength of an unrecognized qualification or one granted by an institution which is not conferred authority to grant the same in accordance with law – Equivalence of qualifications could not be left to depend or rest upon a self-certification of candidates – No certificate could possibly be accorded with equivalence unless an enquiry is addressed towards its course content and syllabus. (Para 15)

(B) Service Law – Termination – Services of such of candidates who were selected in select list dated 14th July 2015 and had produced CCC certificate at the time of interview could not have been terminated – Respondent-Corporation has grossly erred in terminating their services – At the same time, Court not inclined to accept contention of those candidates who did not have CCC certificate even on date of their interview but have obtained the same subsequently – When advertisement as well as 1995 Regulations required CCC certificate to be produced at the time of interview, if it is permitted to produce the same subsequent to date of interview, it would be contrary to advertisement and 1995 Regulations – Present case is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution of India – Such of applicants who found place in select list dated 14th July 2015 and who possessed/produced CCC certificate at the time of their interview directed to be reinstated forthwith – Though they would not be entitled to back wages for the period during which they were out of employment, they would be entitled to placement in seniority list as per their positions as in select list dated 14th July 2015 with continuity in service with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, terminal benefits etc. (Paras 15, 26, 28 and 29)

Facts of the case:

Present applications/appeal have been filed praying for a direction to concerned authority to re-appoint applicants on post of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited who were appointed pursuant to advertisement dated 6th September 2014, by setting aside termination letter dated 13th May 2018 issued by respondent-Corporation against applicants herein.

Findings of Court:

Respondent-Corporation has misinterpreted Judgment of Single Judge and terminated services of applicants who were otherwise entitled to be continued as per Judgment.

Result : Applications/appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 23273 of 2023.

2. The present applications/appeal have been filed praying for a direction to the concerned authority to re-appoint the applicants on the post of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “respondent-Corporation”) who were appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 6th September 2014, by setting aside the termination letter dated 13th May 2018 issued by the respondent-Corporation against the applicants herein.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present applications/appeal are as given below:

3.1 The erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board under the Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, promulgated the U.P. State Power Parishad Operative Employees Cadre Service Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “1995 Regulations”).

3.2 With the enactment of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, the U.P. State Electricity Board ceased to exist and was replaced by the respondent-Corporation.

3.3 The respondent-Corporation adopted the 1995 Regulations which prescribed the method of filling-up posts of Technician Grade-II and set out the educational qualifications in relation thereto.

3.4 By an office memorandum dated 29th January 2011, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation amended the 1995 Regulations thereby prescribing that all incumbents seeking selection to the post of Technician Grade-II would be liable to hold a Certificate of 80 Hours Course on Computer Concepts (hereinafter referred to as “CCC certificate”) issued by Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses (hereinafter referred to as “DOEACC”) and would need to produce the same certificate at the time of interview.

3.5 By an office memorandum dated 25th November 2011, the respondent-Corporation provided that an equivalent computer eligibility qualification to CCC certificate issued by DOEACC would also be accepted.

3.6 On 6th September 2014, the respondent-Corporation issued an advertisement, thereby inviting applications for appointments against 2,211 posts of Technician Grade-II (Electrical). Possession of CCC certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate was one of the mandatory educational qualifications prescribed in paragraph 2 of the advertisement. In terms of paragraph 7 of the advertisement, the candidates were required to submit the CCC certificate at the time of interview.

3.7 On 8th November 2014, a written examination was conducted and the applicants herein qualified the written examination. The applicants herein, thereafter, appeared in the interview conducted during the period from December 2014 to July 2015.

3.8 On 14th July 2015, the final selection list was prepared and published. The applicants herein were issued appointment letters.

3.9 On 25th July 2015, the unsuccessful candidates preferred a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court being Writ-A No. 41750 of 2015 and other connected petitions seeking quashing of the select list dated 14th July 2015, and revision of the select list by excluding those candidates who had obtained CCC certificate on dates subsequent to 30th September 2014 as also those candidates who did not possess CCC certificate as awarded by DOEACC, since renamed as National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as “NIELIT”).

3.10 Vide final judgment and order dated 7th October 2017, the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court quashed the select list in question insofar as it includes candidates who do not hold a CCC certificate conferred or recognized by NIELIT. Further, the Single Judge directed the respondents therein to re-draw the select list restricting it to the candidates who hold a recognized CCC certificate or a qualification recognized in law as being equivalent thereto.

3.11 Accordingly, on 13th October 2017, the Electricity Service Commission, UPPCL, direct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top