# MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1145
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-12-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mukul-kumar-tyagi-v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-ors-33904
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Service Law - Recruitment - Mandatory qualification -
Equivalence of - Requirement, if fulfilled - Duty of recruiting
authority/employer to verify - 1995 Regulations provided for
recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-II - Recruitment to the
said posts conducted by respondents-Uttar Pradesh Electricity
Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited,
Lucknow - In 2011, the Corporation substituted the computer
qualification prescribed earlier with "Certificate of 80 Hours
Course
on
Computer
Concept
(CCC)
issued
by
DOEACC"[Department of Electronics Accreditation Computer
Courses now taken over by National Institute of Electronics and
Information Technology (NIELIT)]- In 2013, this qualification was
substituted with CCC Certificate or its equivalent computer
qualification certificate - 2014 advertisement issued by Commission
wherein inter alia CCC Certificate or its equivalent computer
qualification was one of the compulsory qualifications - Select list
dated. 14.07.2015 published - Persons not included in the list,
filed writ petitions - Single Judge by judgment dated. 07.10.2017
quashed the list insofar it included candidates who did not hold
CCC certificate by NIELIT - List revised, and the names of such
candidates were deleted - Writ Petition filed challenging the order
deleting name - Dismissed - Special Appeal dismissed by division
bench - Candidates having CCC certificate or equivalent thereto
were included in the select list (the appellants in C.A.No. 9026/19
& 9027/19), issued appointment orders and are working as on date
- Division Bench in Special Appeal No.585/2018, set aside the
judgment dated. 07.10.2017 and dismissed all the writ petitions -
Held: In the earlier recruitment held in 2011 only CCC certificate
issued by DOEACC was part of mandatory qualification- It was
for the 2014 recruitment that CCC certificate or equivalent
computer qualification was provided for- CCC certificate is a well-
 [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1145
1145
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
known certificate issued under the aegis of the Government of
India and have been made part of essential qualifications for
different posts throughout the country - No material to indicate
that CCC certificate is also granted by any other body or authority
- Thus, CCC certificate mentioned in the 2014 advertisement was
CCC certificate as granted by NIELIT/DOEACC - Further, the
advertisement in the present case neither envisaged nor permitted
the candidates to give any self-certification or self-declaration that
their computer qualification is equivalent to CCC - Equivalence
of qualification claimed by candidates is matter of scrutiny by the
recruiting agency/employer, which was not undertaken in the
present case, and cannot be left to candidates by their selfdeclaration - Thus, self-certification by the candidates of their
computer qualification was not sufficient to treat them having
passed the required qualification - Also, deletion of names of
certain candidates from the select list was upheld by an earlier
Division Bench - However, Division Bench in the impugned
judgment without adverting to the same restored the select list, which
was in existence on 14.07.2015, thus, the judgment of the Division
Bench cannot be sustained - Further, the judgment of Single Judge
also cannot be faulted on the ground that all the selected
candidates were not impleaded in the writ petitions challenging the
select list dated. 14.07.2015 - Judgment of the Division Bench set
aside, while that of the Single Judge dated. 07.10.2017 is restored
- Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board of Operational Employees
Category Service Regulations, 1995 - Uttar Pradesh Electricity
Supply Act, 1948 - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 -
Constitution of India - Art. 16.
Practice & Procedure - Writ petition - Impleadment -
Recruitment for Technician Grade-II under the 1995 Regulations
- Mandatory qualification envisaged in the advertisement - Large
numb

## Text

_Characters 0–39,933 of 94,378. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39933 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1145
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019)
DECEMBER 16, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law - Recruitment - Mandatory qualification -
Equivalence of - Requirement, if fulfilled - Duty of recruiting
authority/employer to verify - 1995 Regulations provided for
recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-II - Recruitment to the
said posts conducted by respondents-Uttar Pradesh Electricity
Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited,
Lucknow - In 2011, the Corporation substituted the computer
qualification prescribed earlier with "Certificate of 80 Hours
Course
on
Computer
Concept
(CCC)
issued
by
DOEACC"[Department of Electronics Accreditation Computer
Courses now taken over by National Institute of Electronics and
Information Technology (NIELIT)]- In 2013, this qualification was
substituted with CCC Certificate or its equivalent computer
qualification certificate - 2014 advertisement issued by Commission
wherein inter alia CCC Certificate or its equivalent computer
qualification was one of the compulsory qualifications - Select list
dated. 14.07.2015 published - Persons not included in the list,
filed writ petitions - Single Judge by judgment dated. 07.10.2017
quashed the list insofar it included candidates who did not hold
CCC certificate by NIELIT - List revised, and the names of such
candidates were deleted - Writ Petition filed challenging the order
deleting name - Dismissed - Special Appeal dismissed by division
bench - Candidates having CCC certificate or equivalent thereto
were included in the select list (the appellants in C.A.No. 9026/19
& 9027/19), issued appointment orders and are working as on date
- Division Bench in Special Appeal No.585/2018, set aside the
judgment dated. 07.10.2017 and dismissed all the writ petitions -
Held: In the earlier recruitment held in 2011 only CCC certificate
issued by DOEACC was part of mandatory qualification- It was
for the 2014 recruitment that CCC certificate or equivalent
computer qualification was provided for- CCC certificate is a well-
 [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1145
1145
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
known certificate issued under the aegis of the Government of
India and have been made part of essential qualifications for
different posts throughout the country - No material to indicate
that CCC certificate is also granted by any other body or authority
- Thus, CCC certificate mentioned in the 2014 advertisement was
CCC certificate as granted by NIELIT/DOEACC - Further, the
advertisement in the present case neither envisaged nor permitted
the candidates to give any self-certification or self-declaration that
their computer qualification is equivalent to CCC - Equivalence
of qualification claimed by candidates is matter of scrutiny by the
recruiting agency/employer, which was not undertaken in the
present case, and cannot be left to candidates by their selfdeclaration - Thus, self-certification by the candidates of their
computer qualification was not sufficient to treat them having
passed the required qualification - Also, deletion of names of
certain candidates from the select list was upheld by an earlier
Division Bench - However, Division Bench in the impugned
judgment without adverting to the same restored the select list, which
was in existence on 14.07.2015, thus, the judgment of the Division
Bench cannot be sustained - Further, the judgment of Single Judge
also cannot be faulted on the ground that all the selected
candidates were not impleaded in the writ petitions challenging the
select list dated. 14.07.2015 - Judgment of the Division Bench set
aside, while that of the Single Judge dated. 07.10.2017 is restored
- Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board of Operational Employees
Category Service Regulations, 1995 - Uttar Pradesh Electricity
Supply Act, 1948 - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 -
Constitution of India - Art. 16.
Practice & Procedure - Writ petition - Impleadment -
Recruitment for Technician Grade-II under the 1995 Regulations
- Mandatory qualification envisaged in the advertisement - Large
number of candidates claiming qualification equivalent to the
mandatory qualification were included without any scrutiny -
Challenge to - Plea that non impleadment of each and every
candidate in the select list is breach of principles of natural justice
- Held: When the inclusion in the select list of large number of
candidates is on the basis of an arbitrary/illegal process, the
aggrieved parties can complain - In such cases necessity of
impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted - In the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1147
present case, when select list contained names of 2211 candidates,
it becomes unnecessary to implead every candidate in view of the
nature of the challenge - Moreover, few selected candidates were
impleaded in the writ petitions in representative capacity - Principle
of natural justice.
Words & Expressions - "equivalent", "self-attestation" -
Meaning of - Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. CCC certificate is a well-known certificate,
which is issued under the aegis of the Government of India,
which certificates have been made part of essential qualifications
for different posts throughout the country. Neither there is any
case on the record nor any material to indicate that CCC
certificate is also being granted by any other body or authority.
There is no certificate brought on record by any of the applicants
or the Corporation or Commission indicating that CCC
certificate is granted by any other body or authority except
DOEACC/NIELIT. When no other body or authority is issuing
CCC certificate, it has to be held that CCC certificate mentioned
in the O.M. of Managing Director and the advertisement was
the CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. The Uttar
Pradesh Power Corporation had added the computer qualification
as the essential requirement to serve a particular purpose and
to select the candidates having such qualification so that they
could perform their duties of the job well. It cannot be accepted
that Managing Director by deleting the CCC certificate from
DOEACC wanted to do away with CCC certificate by DOEACC
or wanted to introduce an uncertainty or a window for all kind
of certificates to be recognised. It is, however, to be noted that
when the qualification of equivalent computer certificate was
provided and added, any certificate, which can be held to be
equivalent to CCC certificate, shall also confer eligibility to a
candidate. The candidates who had submitted application in
response to advertisement dated 14.09.2014 had also
understood the advertisement to the effect that equivalent
computer qualification referred to in the advertisement is the
equivalent computer qualification to CCC certificate of NIELIT.
The Commission and the Corporation accepted the judgment of
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
Single Judge dated 07.10.2017 and proceeded to redraw the
select list. The decision of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation as communicated to Electricity Service Commission
by letter dated 29.01.2018 which has been brought on record in
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and
4 in Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019 also refers the CCC
certificate issued by NIELIT/DOEACC while determining the
equivalence of the certificate claimed by the candidates who do
not possess CCC certificate by DOEACC/NIELIT. The Division
Bench in the impugned judgment erroneously held that
employer after judgment dated 07.10.2017 did not take into
consideration the CCC Certificate of DOEACC or NIELIT. CCC
certificate as mentioned in the advertisement dated 14.09.2014
was CCC certificate as granted by NIELIT/DOEACC. [Paras 42,
44, 45, 47, 49 and 51] [1165-G-H; 1166-A; 1167-A-F; 1168-E;
1170-A-B-E]
2. The mandatory qualification as per the advertisement
is CCC certificate or equivalent computer qualification. Some
of the candidates who did not have CCC certificate and relied
on computer qualification issued by private organizations and
society had given a self-declaration that their computer
qualification is equivalent to CCC Certificate. The clause in the
advertisement only refers to self-attested and signed photocopies
of qualification certificates, marksheets, caste certificates, etc.
Self-attestation is a well-known concept according to which a
candidate making any application instead of obtaining attestation
by Gazetted Officer of the certificates may self-attest the
certificates and submit them, which is subject to subsequent
scrutiny and verification. When application is submitted online,
self-attestation by candidate is sufficient to consider the
candidature of the candidate for purposes of calling him to appear
in the written test. Last part of clause (7) further contemplates
that "all the certificates concerning with qualification of
candidates declared successful in written test, could be
scrutinised." The Clause (7) does not contemplate any selfdeclaration or self-certification of equivalence of computer
qualification of the candidate. The advertisement neither
envisaged nor permitted the candidates to give any selfcertification or self-declaration that their computer qualification
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1149
is equivalent to CCC. The equivalence of qualification as claimed
by a candidate is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/
employer. It is the recruiting agency which has to be satisfied
as to whether the claim of equivalence of qualification by a
candidate is sustainable or not. The purpose and object of
qualification is fixed by employer to suit or fulfil the objective
of recruiting the best candidates for the job. It is the recruiting
agency who is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications
of a candidate as to whether a candidate is eligible and entitled
to participate in the selection. More so when the advertisement
clearly contemplates that certificate concerning the qualification
shall be scrutinised, it was the duty and obligation of the
recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the
eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or selfdeclaration by a candidate that his computer qualification is
equivalent to CCC has neither been envisaged in the
advertisement nor can be said to be fulfilling the eligibility
condition. Scrutiny of Computer qualification claimed by
candidate to be equivalent to CCC certificate is the obligation
and duty of the recruiting agency/employer as per the
advertisement itself. The recruiting agency or the employer
cannot abdicate their obligation to scrutinise the eligibility of
candidate pertaining to computer qualification and reliance on
self-certification by the candidate is wholly inappropriate and may
lead to participation of candidates who do not fulfil the mandatory
qualification as per the advertisement. advertisement dated
14.09.2014 do not envisage self-certification by the candidate of
equivalence to CCC certificate of the computer qualification and
further, self-certification by the candidates of their computer
qualification was not sufficient to treat them having passed the
required qualification. [Paras 52, 54, 55, 57-58] [1170-F-G; 1171F-H; 1172-A-E-H; 1173-A-C]
3.1 In the earlier recruitment, which was held in 2011 for
the post of Technician Grade-II only CCC certificate issued by
DOEACC was part of mandatory qualification and it was for the
2014 recruitment that CCC certificate or equivalent computer
qualification was provided for. When equivalent qualification to
CCC was provided for as a mandatory qualification, it was
incumbent on the Corporation as well as on the recruitment
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
agency to reflect on the said issue and to lay down criteria or
guidelines to declare equivalence of the CCC certificate. No
criteria or guidelines were framed or determined either by the
Corporation or the Commission before completion of the
recruitment process. The employer, who had issued
advertisement and required fulfilling of qualification as
prescribed ought to be keenly interested in selecting candidates,
who fulfil the qualification and serve the post as per requirement
of employer. Preparation of the select list without scrutiny of
the computer qualification of the candidates, who do not possess
CCC certificates is abdication of duty and obligation, both by
Corporation and the Commission. Equivalence of qualification
cannot be left to candidates by their self-declaration. There has
to be norms and guidelines, which may sub serve the purpose
and object of making equivalent qualification as an eligibility for
the post. The word "equivalent" has been defined in "Advanced
Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition. When issue is
of the equivalence of a qualification, which is mandatory
qualification for a post, there should be yardsticks declaring
equivalent or equivalence, which has to be declared by any body
entrusted with such jurisdiction and who is competent to declare
equivalence of a qualification. In absence of any such declaration,
it is for the employer to provide for the methodology for
determining the equivalent qualification. The CCC certificate is
issued by DOEACC/NIELIT, which is on a particular syllabus.
Syllabus of the CCC certificate is placed at pages 225 to 230 of
the paper book. For declaring any other certificate as equivalent
to CCC, the syllabus on which CCC certificate has been granted
is most material factor, which has to be looked into. In the
present case, no exercise was done by the Corporation or the
Commission to determine the equivalence of the qualification
claimed by the candidates, who had not passed CCC certificate
from DOEACC/NIELIT. Neither there was any criteria or
guidelines framed by employer or the recruitment agency to
determine the equivalence nor any exercise was conducted by
the Commission during the process of recruitment and without
there being scrutiny of the equivalent qualification claimed by
several candidates, their names were included on the basis of
self-certification. The Division Bench of the High Court in its
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1151
impugned judgment has not overturned the findings of the Single
Judge that neither there was a criteria nor any scrutiny was
undertaken by the Commission in the recruitment process. The
Division Bench relied on self-certification by the candidates
regarding equivalence of their qualification. [Paras 60-62, 64]
[1173-G-H; 1174-A-D-G-H; 1175-A-B; 1176-C-E]
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation
of India and Others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and
Others (2017) 8 SCC 670 : [2017] 11 SCR 271 -
relied on.
Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd
Edition - referred to.
3.2 When the advertisement itself referred to the scrutiny
of the qualification and in the recruitment for the first time, the
equivalent qualifications were also made mandatory qualification,
both the Corporation and the Commission ought to have been
more careful in the recruitment process since it is in the interest
of both the Commission and the Corporation to select the
candidates, who fulfil the qualification, which may subserve the
public interest and fulfil the requirement of Article 16 of the
Constitution of India. In the revised select list apart from
candidates, who had CCC certificates from DOEACC/NIELIT,
the candidates who were covered under guidelines dated
03.05.2016 were also treated as equivalent to CCC and were
given place in the merit list subject to marks secured by them
in the written test and interview. The deletion of names of certain
candidates from the select list was upheld by an earlier Division
Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court
in the impugned judgment without adverting to cases of those
whose deletion of names were upheld by the earlier Division
Bench of the High Court had restored the select list, which was
in existence on 14.07.2015. For the above reasons, the
judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained. [Paras 65,
66 and 68] [1176-F-H; 1177-G; 1178-D-E]
Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Bihar and Others
(2017) 4 SCC 357 : [2016] 8 SCR 815 - referred to.
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
4.1 When the inclusion in the select list of large number
of candidates is on the basis of an arbitrary or illegal process,
the aggrieved parties can complain and in such cases necessity
of impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted.
Furthermore, when select list contained names of 2211
candidates, it becomes unnecessary to implead every candidate
in view of the nature of the challenge, which was levelled in the
writ petition. Moreover, few selected candidates were also
impleaded in the writ petitions in representative capacity. The
judgment of Single Judge cannot be faulted on the ground that
all the selected candidates were not impleaded in the writ
petitions filed in the High Court challenging the select list dated
14.07.2015. [Paras 75, 76] [1183-E-G]
4.2 The fact that there are several vacancies due to nonjoining or resignation of the candidates is a subsequent event,
with regard to which, it is for the Corporation to take any
decision and no direction need to be issued in this appeal in this
regard. If so advised, the appellants - aggrieved candidates can
always represent to the Corporation. These are the issues which
need to be addressed to the Corporation. Whether the existing
vacancies have to be filled up by the recruitment, which was
undertaken in 2014 or for existing vacancies any further steps
are to be taken up, are the issues which have to be considered
by the Corporation and any direction need not be issued in that
regard. There shall be liberty to such candidates to represent
to the Corporation, which is the authority, to take a decision in
accordance with law. The judgment of the Division Bench dated
09.05.2019 is set aside and the judgment of the Single Judge
dated 07.10.2017 is restored. [Paras 77-79] [1184-A-B-E-G]
Case Law Reference
[2017] 11 SCR 271
relied on
Para 63
[2016] 8 SCR 815
referred to
Para 71
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9026
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2019 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 585 of 2018
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1153
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 9027, 9028 of 2019.
P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anjana Prakash, Prashant S., Suyash
Srivastava, Anurag Tripathi, Jahar Singh, Ms. Shreya Mishra,
Ms. Madhumay Misra, Satyajeet Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dushyant Dave, Niraj Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Raizada, Parag
Tripathi, Sr. Advs., Rajesh Pathak, Debashish Bharuka, Abhishek
Chakraborty, Pramod Kumar, Binod Mishra, Akash Lamba, Bhupendra
Bhardwaj, S. R. Setia, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Aviral Saxena,
Ms. Mishika Bajpayee, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. 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
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1155
7. A fresh advertisement No.4/V.SE.Aa/2014 dated 06.09.2014
was issued by Electricity Service Commission inviting applications for
2211 vacancies. Paragraph 2 of the advertisement provides for
compulsory qualifications to the following effect:-
"2. Compulsory qualifications:
(1) High School or its equivalent exam. pass from Board
of Higher Secondary Education, U.P. with Science &
Math subjects and All India/State Vocational Certificate
in Electrician Trade &
(2) Course on Computer Concept (CCC) Certificate or its
equivalent computer qualification certificate.
Note: Certificate of Electrician Trade only would be admissible.
Certificate received through Distant Education and certificate
obtained on the basis of experience would not be admissible."
8. Written examination was conducted on 08.11.2014 and
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, learned Single Judge passed
following order:-
"Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 and Shri Ayank Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4.
Issue notice to the respondents no. 5 to 11 through the Secretary,
Electricity Service Commission.
Learned counsel for the respondents pray for and is granted time
till 6th August, 2015 to file counter affidavit particularly with
reference to the assertions made in paragraphs 24 to 28 of the
writ petition.
On the request of the learned counsel for the respondents, put
up as a fresh case on 6th August, 2015 before the appropriate
Court.
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
Matter need not be treated as tied up or part heard. Learned
counsel for the respondent submits that no final decision will be
taken in pursuance to the impugned select list.
Order Date:- 31.7.2015"
9. 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
[renamed as National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology
(NIELIT)]. In the writ petition, the petitioners had arrayed various
selected candidates in representative capacity. The case of the
petitioners was that CCC Certificate is granted only by DOEACC/
NIELIT and none of the certificates issued by private or unrecognised
institutions can be treated as equivalent thereto and thus, candidates,
who have filed certificates from private and unrecognised institutions
cannot be held to possess qualification as prescribed by the
advertisement.
10. On 17.02.2016, an order was passed by the learned Single
Judge that all appointments to be made by the respondent would abide
by the final decision of the writ petition. Learned Single Judge by its
order dated 12.08.2016 noticing relevant aspects of the case called upon
the Commission to file further affidavit. Commission filed an affidavit
and referred to decision dated 27.01.2015 where respondents had
treated certificate granted upon the culmination of a course spread over
three months or 80 Hours as equivalent to CCC Certificate. Learned
Single Judge after hearing the writ petitioners, the Electricity
Commission and the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation allowed the writ
petitions. Learned Single Judge quashed the select list drawn up
pursuant to the advertisements in question insofar as it includes
candidates who do not hold a CCC certificate conferred or recognised
by NIELIT. Learned Single Judge directed the respondents to redraw
the select list restricting it to the candidates, who hold a recognised CCC
certificate or a qualification recognised in law as being equivalent
thereto. The Commission was directed to reframe the merit list and
publish the results thereof afresh. The judgment of the learned Single
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1157
Judge dated 07.10.2017 was accepted by the Commission. The merit
list was revised in accordance with the judgment of the High Court
dated 07.10.2017. The revised merit list was published on 21.06.2018.
Several candidates, who did not possess CCC Certificate or equivalent
were deleted from the select list. One of the candidates, whose name
was deleted, filed a Writ Petition No. 13216 of 2018 -Rohit Vs. State
of U.P. and 2 others, challenging the order dated 13.05.2018, by which
his name was deleted. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned
Single Judge on 30.05.2018 upholding the order of deletion of his name.
A Special Appeal No. 582 of 2018 was filed by Rohit, the writ petitioner,
which too was dismissed by the Division Bench on 22.06.2018
reaffirming the view of learned Single Judge that writ petitioner (Rohit)
did not possess the certificate of Computer Course or its equivalent
course. The certificate issued in October, 2015 by NIELIT having
obtained after the last date of the application (i.e. 30.09.2014) was held
not to make the candidate eligible. Consequent to the publication of
the revised list on 21.06.2018 about 903 candidates went out of the select
list. Other candidates, who had CCC certificate or equivalent thereto
were included in the select list. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 9026
of 2019 - Mukul Kumar Tyagi and Civil Appeal No. 9027 of 2019 -
Rajiv Kumar and others are the appellants, who came in the select list
after the revision of the select list and were issued appointment orders
thereafter and have joined the post and are working as on date.
11. The Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 585 of 2018 and
other connected appeals issued a direction to the respondent on
24.08.2018 to make equivalence of the qualification of ITI/ any
Vocational qualification possessed by the appellants and persons
similarly situated to the appellants. Questioning the judgment and
direction of the Division Bench dated 24.08.2018, Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No.24585 of 2018 was filed in this Court, which came to
be disposed of on 01.10.2018. The direction issued by the Division
Bench to the Commission was made inoperative in the interregnum.
This Court requested the High Court to dispose of the Special Appeals
as expeditiously as possible.
12. The special appeals came to be finally decided by the Division
Bench vide its impugned judgment dated 09.05.2019. The special
appeals have been allowed, judgment of learned Single Judge dated
07.10.2017 has been set aside and all the writ petitions were dismissed.
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
13. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench dated
09.05.2019, these appeals have been filed.
14. The appellants in Civil Appeal No.9026 of 2019, Mukul Kumar
Tyagi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, and Civil Appeal No.
9027 of 2019, Rajiv Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others are candidates whose names were included in the revised select
list dated 21.06.2018 drawn by the Commission consequent to the
judgment of learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017. The appellants of
both the above appeals were also appointed on post of Technician
Grade-II after they being included in the revised select list dated
21.06.2018.
15. In Civil Appeal No.9026 of 2019, first respondent is State of
U.P., 2nd respondent is Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., 3rd
respondent is Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.
and 4th respondent is Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation Ltd. Respondent Nos.5 to 11 were respondent Nos.
5 to 11 in Special Appeal No.585 of 2018. Respondent Nos. 12 to 23
are proforma respondents, who were respondents in Special Appeal
No.585 of 2018 along with Mukul Kumar Tyagi, appellant. The
respondent Nos. 24 to 29 were the appellants in Special Appeal No.585
of 2018.
16. Civil Appeal No. 9028 of 2019, Ravi Prakash and Others Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, is appeal by those candidates who
though appeared in the written examination and in the interview but
were not included either in the original select list or in the revised select
list. All the appellants are candidates who have CCC certificate from
DOEACC despite that they could not find place in the original merit
list or the revised merit list.
17. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel,
Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel and Ms. Mahalakshmi
Pavani, learned senior counsel for the appellants. Shri Dushyant Dave,
learned senior counsel, Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel
and Shri Debashish Bharuka have appeared for private respondents.
Shri Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel has appeared for UPPCL
and Electricity Service Commission.
18. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submits that the select list dated 14.07.2015 drawn by the Commission
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
contained the names of the candidates who did not fulfil the eligibility
as per the advertisement dated 14.09.2014. Several candidates who
were included in the select list dated 14.07.2015 had no CCC certificate
from DOEACC or NIELIT. The certificates which were relied by the
large number of candidates were certificates obtained from private
institutes which were unrecognised and who were not competent to
issue any certificate nor such certificate could have been equivalent to
CCC. Learned Single Judge after having found that the Commission
included in the select list the candidates whose certificates were not
equivalent to CCC and no exercise having been conducted by the
Commission to verify the equivalence of certificates as claimed by large
number of candidates directed the Commission by judgment dated
07.10.2017 to redraw the select list after verifying the equivalence of
certificates of those candidates who had not filed CCC certificate.
19. Shri Patwalia submits that self-certification by candidates that
their computer qualifications are equivalent to CCC was wholly
unauthorised and illegal. The Commission in the selection process relied
on self-certification by the candidates for including them in the select
list which was unjustified and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution
of India.
20. Shri Patwalia submits that qualifications which are prescribed
by the employer for recruitment on the post of Technician Grade-II had
to be strictly adhered to in the selection process. Shri Patwalia submits
that CCC certificate was issued by DOEACC which subsequently
became NIELIT which is the only recognised authority to issue CCC
certificate. No other authority or body has been found to issue CCC
Certificate. For declaring a computer certificate as equivalent to CCC,
the recruiting authority/employer has to compare the course contents
of the CCC Certificate and the course contents of the certificate which
is claimed to be equivalent to CCC.
21. Shri Patwalia submits that in the Selection in question, there
were no guidelines or criteria for declaring equivalence of the computer
certificate to the CCC. In the entire selection process, no exercise was
undertaken by the Commission to verify the certificates of the candidates
who claimed certificate from private organizations, registered societies,
which were not authorised to issue any computer qualification certificate.
22. It is submitted that all the appellants are candidates, who have
passed CCC certificate from DOEACC and were entitled to be included
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
in the merit list but for the inclusion of unqualified candidates in the
original select list dated 14.07.2015, they could not find place in the merit
list. The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017 has been
accepted by the Corporation as well as the Commission and in
compliance of the judgment, the revised merit list was drawn.
23. It is submitted that in revising the select list, the Order dated
03.05.2016 issued by the State of U.P. which provided a mode to be
adopted for equivalence of computer qualification was adhered to and
as per the Government Order dated 03.05.2016 equivalence of CCC
certificate was declared and those candidates who fulfil the equivalence
as per Government Order dated 03.05.2016 were included in the select
list.
24. Shri Patwalia submits that the Division Bench has erroneously
accepted the self-certification by the candidates as equivalent to CCC
Certificate, which is unsustainable.
25. Shri Patwalia further submits that the ITI certificate and other
vocational certificates which Division Bench held to be equivalent to
CCC certificate is not sustainable. He submits that certificate of ITI
and other vocational certificates do not conform to the course contents
of CCC certificate and can never be held to be equivalent to CCC
certificate. Shri Patwalia further submits that after the judgment of
learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017, the revised Select list was
drawn which revised select list came to be challenged in the High Court
separately by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed upholding the
revision of select list. A special appeal filed against the judgment of
learned Single Judge being Special Appeal No.582 of 2018 was also
dismissed upholding the deletion of those candidates who did not have
computer certificates equivalent to CCC.
26. It is submitted that a Division Bench of the High Court having
upheld the exercise carried out by Commission consequent to the
judgment dated 07.10.2017, the Division Bench in the impugned
judgment could not have taken a contrary view. It is submitted that
Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Special Appeal No.585
of 2018 has not even been referred to in the impugned judgment.
27. Shri Patwalia submits that the Division Bench committed error
in setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and
consequence of which is to restore the Select list containing the names
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1161
of the candidates who do not fulfil the qualification for the post. It is
submitted that Division Bench could not have diluted the qualifications
which was prescribed in the advertisement more so when there was
no challenge to the qualification by anyone. Shri Patwalia submitted
that CCC certificate is given only by DOEACC/NIELIT and the CCC
certificate which was required in the advertisement was the certificate
issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
28. Smt. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing in Civil
Appeal No. 9027 of 2019 adopted the submissions of Shri Patwalia and
submits that all the appellants were included in the revised select list
who have been appointed and are working.
29. Smt. Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing in Civil Appeal No. 9028
of 2019, Ravi Prakash and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others submits that all the appellants in the appeal have CCC
certificates from DOEACC but they could not be included in the original
select list or revised select list. It is submitted that there are 161
vacancies on the post of Technician Grade-II caused due to resignation
and non-joining, on which vacancies the appellants, who have CCC
certificates and participated in written test and interview can be
appointed. She prayed that appropriate direction be issued to appoint
the appellants on the above vacant posts.
30. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellants supports the judgment of the Division Bench. Shri Dave
submits that in the writ petition filed before the High Court selected
candidates having not been made party, the learned Single Judge could
not have quashed the select list. He submits that the judgment of learned
Single Judge has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice
since it was passed without hearing the selected candidates, who had
acquired right consequent to the selection on the post.