1. Recruitment for Technician Grade-II — Dispute over eligibility regarding mandatory computer qualification certificates — Requirement of specific certification or recognized equivalent qualification. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1370
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ
Mukul Kumar Tyagi - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019
With
Rajiv Kumar And Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9027 of 2019
With
Ravi Prakash And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9028 of 2019
Decided on : 16-12-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
CCC certificate means only the one issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
Self attestation and self certification - Distinction.
Scrutiny of certificates is obligation and duty of the recruiting agency/employer. Cannot be abdicated to candidates.
Candidates participating in selection process cannot challenge qualifications required in the advertisement or the process itself, but can challenge inclusion in the select list of candidates who did not fulfill required qualifications.
It is for the authorities and not the Court to decide whether to continue those candidates in service who were appointed as per original select list but were excluded in the redrawn list and who had in the meantime worked for about three years.
CCC certificate means only the one issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
Self attestation and self certification - Distinction.
Scrutiny of certificates is obligation and duty of the recruiting agency/employer. Cannot be abdicated to candidates.
Candidates participating in selection process cannot challenge qualifications required in the advertisement or the process itself, but can challenge inclusion in the select list of candidates who did not fulfill required qualifications.
It is for the authorities and not the Court to decide whether to continue those candidates in service who were appointed as per original select list but were excluded in the redrawn list and who had in the meantime worked for about three years.
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.16, Art.226, Art.14
UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REFORMS ACT: .
UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT: .
UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REFORMS ACT: .
UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT: .
Headnote
(a) Service law - Recruitment - Qualification - CCC certificate by DOEACC/NIELIT - later modified to CCC certificate or equivalent - CCC granted by DOEACC/NIELIT - No other institution granting CCC certificate - Qualification requirement shall include CCC by DOEACC/NIELIT - It does not exclude CCC by DOEACC/NIELIT - CCC certificate means only the one issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. (Para 44, 51)
(b) Service law - Recruitment - Self attestation and self certification - Distinction - Advertisement requiring self attestation of all certificates, documents - Not permitting self declaration or self certification - Candidates themselves certifying that their certificate was equivalent to CCC certificate by DOEACC/NIELIT - Neither envisaged in the advertisement nor fulfills the eligibility condition - Scrutiny of certificates obligation and duty of the recruiting agency/employer - Cannot be abdicated to candidates. (Para 55, 57)
(c) Service law - Recruitment - Required qualification CCC by DOEACC/NIELIT or equivalent - No criteria or guidelines framed or determined for equivalence till the end of recruitment process - determination of equivalence cannot be left with candidates - Guidelines issued only after Single Judge of the High court quashed part of the select list - Select list redrawn accordingly - Division Bench erred in upsetting judgment of the single Judge. (Para 60, 65)
(d) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Necessary party - All selected candidates not impleaded - Only a few of them impleaded in representative capacity - Even out of them nobody appeared - No error in entertaining the writ petition. (Para 70)
(e) Service law - Recruitment - Candidates participating in selection process - Challenging select list - Petitioners not challenging qualifications as prescribed in advertisement or the process - Grievance was inclusion of candidates in the select list who did not possess essential qualification - Select list kept in abeyance till decision in the writ petition - Further, Commission obtaining undertaking from candidates to the effect that they will not have any grievance in case their qualification is not equivalent to CCC - No error in judgment of single Judge. (Para 75)
(f) Service law - Recruitment - Candidates selected in first select list - Going out on redrawal of the same - Serving for 3 years in the meantime - Vacancies existing - whether to allow them to continue - Decision rests with the authorities not the Court. (Para 78)
Facts of the case:
A fresh advertisement No.4/V.SE.Aa/2014 dated 06.09.2014 was issued by Electricity Service Commission inviting applications for 2211 vacancies.
candidates were called for interview in December, 2014/January, 2015. On 24.04.2015, a second advertisement was issued by Commission seeking to fill up 884 posts of Technician Grade II. On 14.07.2015, the Commission published a select list of 2211 candidates, in response to the first advertisement. On 31.07.2015, Writ Petition No.41750 of 2015 – Prashant Kumar Jaiswal and 12 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 10 Others was filed in which on 31.07.2015
The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 41750 of 2015 were not included in the select list published on 14.07.2015 by the Commission. Writ petitioners sought quashing of the select list dated 14.07.2015 and further sought revision of the select list after excluding therefrom the candidates, who have obtained computer eligibility certificate on date subsequent to 30.09.2014 and other candidates, who do not possess computer concept certificate as awarded by DOEACC society.
The single Judge quashed the select list and directed the respondents to redraw the select list.
The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the single Judge and dismissed all writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :P.S. Patwalia, Mahalakshmi Pavani, Anjana Prakash, Prashant Shukla, Suyash Srivastava, Anurag Tripathi, Satyajeet Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rajesh Pathak, Debashish Bharuka, Abhishek Chakraborty, S.R. Setia, Vinod Diwakar, B.N. Dubey, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Aviral Saxena, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :P.S. Patwalia, Mahalakshmi Pavani, Anjana Prakash, Prashant Shukla, Suyash Srivastava, Anurag Tripathi, Satyajeet Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rajesh Pathak, Debashish Bharuka, Abhishek Chakraborty, S.R. Setia, Vinod Diwakar, B.N. Dubey, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Aviral Saxena, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Whether self-certification of equivalence to a mandatory qualification is sufficient for eligibility — Whether non-impleadment of all selected candidates violates principles of natural justice. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 )
3. Employer cannot abdicate duty to scrutinize equivalence through self-certification — Equivalence must be determined by the recruiting agency based on objective criteria or syllabus. (Para 41 , 42 , 44 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 66 )
4. Mandatory qualifications must be strictly scrutinized by the employer; self-certification of equivalence is insufficient to establish eligibility for public employment. (Para 55 , 57 , 58 , 62 , 63 , 65 )
5. Appeals allowed — Judgment of Division Bench set aside — Judgment of Single Judge restored. (Para 79 )
6. Is self-certification by a candidate sufficient to establish equivalence of a mandatory qualification for public employment?
No. The recruiting agency or employer is obligated to scrutinize qualifications and determine equivalence based on objective criteria. Reliance on self-certification is inappropriate and may lead to the selection of candidates who do not fulfill mandatory qualifications. (Para 54 , 55 , 57 , 58 )
7. How should a recruiting agency determine the equivalence of a mandatory qualification?
The employer must establish yardsticks or a methodology for determining equivalence. This involves comparing the course contents and syllabus of the required certificate with the qualification claimed by the candidate to ensure they are equal in value or effect. (Para 61 , 62 )
8. Must every selected candidate be impleaded in a writ petition challenging a select list based on an arbitrary process?
No. When the inclusion of candidates is based on an arbitrary or illegal process, the necessity of impleading every single person is not absolute, particularly when some selected candidates are impleaded in a representative capacity. (Para 75 , 76 )
9. Can a candidate who participated in a selection process challenge the inclusion of ineligible candidates in the final select list?
Yes. While candidates generally cannot challenge the selection process after being unsuccessful, they can seek judicial review when the cause of action arises from the inclusion of persons who do not fulfill essential qualifications. (Para 72 )
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
These three appeals have been filed questioning the common judgment of High Court of Allahabad dated 09.05.2019 delivered by a Division Bench in Special Appeal No.585 of 2018 – Deepak Sharma and 05 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. with several other special appeals. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017 delivered in batch of writ petitions led by Writ Petition No. 41750 of 2015 – Prashant Kumar Jaiswal and 12 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 10 Others and dismissing all the writ petitions.
2. For deciding these appeals, it shall be sufficient to notice the facts and questions of law as arising in Civil Appeal No.9026 of 2019 – Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors., which is being treated as lead appeal. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 07.10.2017 has decided the batch of writ petitions led by Writ Petition No.41750 of 2015 – Prashant Kumar Jaiswal and 12 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 10 Others, which judgment was subject matter of challenge in the Special Appeal No. 585 of 2018 and other appeals in which impugned judgment has been delivered. It is, thus, necessary to notice the relevant facts giving rise to Writ Petition No.47510 of 2015 and sequence of the events after judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017.
3. The subject matter of these appeals is recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-II in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited conducted by Uttar Pradesh Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow. Under UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT , 1948, the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board had framed regulations constituting Electricity Service Commission, which was entrusted to conduct examination for the various posts to be filled up by competitive examination. After enactment of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, the Uttar Pradesh Electricity State Board ceased to exist and was replaced by the Corporation. The Corporation adopted the Regulations framed by Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board including Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board of Operational Employees Category Service Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 1995”), which provided for recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-II. The qualifications provided for in Regulations, 1995 were as follows:-
“Passing High School or its equivalent with Science and Mathematics as subject from UP Secondary Education Council and All India/State Trade Certificate in Electrical Trade”
4. The Corporation by O.M. dated 24.12.2010 provided that apart from qualification mentioned in Regulations, 1995 the persons must have three months certificate course in regard to knowledge of Windows issued by Computer Institutions recognised by State Government. On 29.01.2011, the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. issued an office memo by which with regard to computer qualification as prescribed earlier by Corporation, following was substituted:-
“Certificate of 80 Hours Course on Computer Concept (CCC) issued by DOEACC”
5. The Managing Director of the Corporation by Office Memo dated 05.07.2013 with regard to direct recruitment at the post of Technician Grade-II in place of the computer qualification of “Certificate of 80 Hours Course on Computer Concept (CCC) issued by DOEACC” substituted “Course on Computer Concept (CCC) Certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate” and sought for the approval of Board of Directors of the Corporation.
6. After Office Memo dated 29.01.2011 issued by Corporation, the Electricity Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) had advertised 2974 posts for Technician Grade-II in the year 2011 where Course on Computer Concept Certificate by DOEACC was one of the mandatory qualifications. The 2011 selection was completed with requirement of CCC certificate by DOEACC.
7. A f
