Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Shiv Charan and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 5280 of 2019
Decided On : 21-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Seemant Singh
For the Respondents: Abhishek Srivastava, Vineet Kumar Singh
Candidates participating in a recruitment process are estopped from challenging the selection criteria or process post-results, as affirmed by established judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment Regulation - Normalization in Recruitment Process - Advertisement dated 17.02.2018 issued for recruitment of Technician Grade-2 posts specifying normalization of marks - Petitioners challenged final select list due to perceived unfair normalization process. (Paras 1, 3, 12)
(B) Legal Standing - Candidates participating in selection cannot challenge process post-outcome - Court reaffirms principle that participants are estopped from questioning the selection process once they have accepted its terms. (Paras 6, 13, 14)
(C) Vacant Seats and Delay - The court held it legally unsustainable to entertain requests for subsequently filling any remaining vacancies seven years post-selection process. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners successfully appeared in examinations but failed to meet cut-offs after marks normalization, leading to their exclusion from the final select list dated 08.03.2019.
Findings of Court:
The principles of recruitment and standardization were outlined clearly in the advertisement, thus no grounds for challenge existed.
Issues: The court addressed issues regarding the application and fairness of the normalization process and candidates' standing after participating in the recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that candidates who partake in the process accept its terms and cannot retroactively contest them once results are announced, referencing previous Supreme Court judgments on the subject.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of recruitment process and petitioners' qualifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding normalization and eligibility. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on participant conduct and lawful procedure. (Para 9 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. legal principles governing candidates' ability to challenge selection post-participation. (Para 15) |
| 5. conclusion of the court dismissing the petitions. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. The Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, issued an Advertisement dated 17.02.2018 for initiating recruitment process to fill up 664 vacant posts of Technician Grade-2 Electric (Trainee) in U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited and 2115 vacant posts of Technician Grade-2 Electric (Trainee) in U.P. Power Corporation Limited. Relevant part of Advertisement, which are essential to decide the controversy involve in present cases, is reproduced hereinafter:
2. All petitioners before this Court, being qualified to participate in above referred recruitment process, have appeared in both part of online examination, i.e., first and second. Most of the petitioners were qualified in first part of examination, therefore, their marks of second part were calculated. Normalization was applied firstly on raw marks of first part of examination who scored more than 20 marks and subsequently on raw marks of second part of examination. Admittedly, petitioners’ marks obtained in second part of examination, after normalization, were less than the cut off marks, therefore, they were not selected in final select list dated 08.03.2019 issued by Secretary, Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow.
3. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners have approached this Court and the prayers made in leading writ petition, i.e., Writ-A No. 5280 of 2019, are reproduced hereinafter:
“a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned final select list dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure No.7 to the Writ Petition) issued by Secretary, Electricity Service Commission, Lucknow, prepared on the basis of merit after having been successful in document verification.
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to redrew the final select the dated 08.03.2019 by applying the process of normalization uniformly as it has been applied in respect of candidates having appeared in online written examination (computer based test) in first and second shifts on 25.01.2019 or in alternative final select list dated 08.03.2019 may be redrawn on the basis of raw marks obtained by the candidates in online written examination (computer based test) without applying process of normalization in selection of Technician Grade-2 Electric (Trainee) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.02.2018 issued by the Secretary, Electricity Service Commission, Lucknow.
c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
d) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.”
4. In other connected writ petitions similar reliefs were sought.
5. Sri Seemant Singh and Sri Vipul Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioners, have argued at length and crux of their arguments are mentioned hereinafter:
(a) Recruitment was conducted in terms of regulation dated 03.07.2017 issued for U.P. Power Corporation Limited wherein entire procedure was mentioned, however, there application of normalization was not referred. This fact has not been denied by learned counsel for respondents. Counsel for rival parties have also not disputed that in the same regulation it was specifically mentioned as follows:
(b) Advertisement does not contemplate that raw marks obtained by each candidate in first part of examination (minimum required marks were 20) were liable to be normalized and only on norm
