Holding

The employer must verify any claimed equivalence of the mandatory CCC qualification; self‑certification is insufficient, and only CCC certificates issued by DOEACC/NIELIT (or duly recognised equivalents) satisfy the eligibility requirement.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the recruitment of Technician Grade‑II officers by Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Service Commission, where the advertisement required a Certificate of Computer Concept (CCC) or an equivalent qualification. Candidates were allowed to self‑declare equivalence of their computer qualifications, and many were included in the select list without any verification by the recruiting authority. The Court held that the CCC certificate is issued only by DOEACC/NIELIT, the advertisement did not permit self‑certification of equivalence, and it was the employer’s duty to scrutinise claimed equivalence. No guidelines or criteria were framed for determining equivalence, rendering the inclusion of unverified candidates arbitrary. Consequently, the Division Bench judgment that restored the original select list was set aside and the Single Judge’s order quashing the list for non‑CCC holders was restored. The appeals were allowed, reinstating the requirement that only candidates with a valid CCC certificate or duly verified equivalent qualification may be selected.

Issues considered

The advertisement required a CCC certificate or equivalent; does a self‑declaration of equivalence satisfy this requirement?
Is the CCC certificate exclusively issued by DOEACC/NIELIT, and can any other body issue an equivalent certificate?
Did the recruiting authority fulfill its duty to verify the claimed equivalence of computer qualifications?
Was the Division Bench correct in setting aside the Single Judge’s order and restoring the original select list?
Does the non‑impleadment of all candidates in the writ petitions violate principles of natural justice?

Legislation cited

Subjects

recruitmentmandatory qualificationequivalence of qualificationself‑certificationnatural justiceArticle 16public serviceselection processverificationCCC certificateDOEACCNIELIT

Judgment

[2019] 16 S.C.R. 1145 1145

MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI A
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019)
DECEMBER 16, 2019 B
[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
C
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 D
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
E
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 F
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
G
– 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- H
1145
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C present case, and cannot be left to candidates by their self-
declaration – 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
D
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
E 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.
F
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 –
G 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
H impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted – In the
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1147

present case, when select list contained names of 2211 candidates, A
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” – B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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]
D 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
E 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
F 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
G candidates declared successf ul in written test, could be
scrutinised.” The Clause (7) does not contemplate any self-
declaration or self-certification of equivalence of computer
qualification of the candidate. The advertisement neither
envisaged nor permitted the candidates to give any self-
H certification or self-declaration that their computer qualification
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1149

is equivalent to CCC. The equivalence of qualification as claimed A
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
B
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 C
recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the
eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or self-
declaration 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
D
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 E
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
F
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; 1171-
F-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 G
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 H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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,
E 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
F 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
G
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
H self-certification. The Division Bench of the High Court in its
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1151

impugned judgment has not overturned the findings of the Single A
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] B
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, 3 rd C
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,
D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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. H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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 non-
joining or resignation of the candidates is a subsequent event,
with regard to which, it is for the Corporation to take any
D 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
E 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
F 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
G [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
H Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 585 of 2018
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1153

With A
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.
B
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.
C
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 D
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
E
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
F
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 G
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 H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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”
D 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
E 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
F 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.
G
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
H was completed with requirement of CCC certificate by DOEACC.
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1155
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

7. A fresh advertisement No.4/V.SE.Aa/2014 dated 06.09.2014 A
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 B
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. C
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. D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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. H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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
D
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
E
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
F 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
G
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
H publish the results thereof afresh. The judgment of the learned Single
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1157
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Judge dated 07.10.2017 was accepted by the Commission. The merit A
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
B
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) C
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
D
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. E
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 F
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 G
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. H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.
C
15. In Civil Appeal No.9026 of 2019, first respondent is State of
U.P., 2nd respondent is Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., 3 rd
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.
D
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.
E
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
F 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,
G 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
H submits that the select list dated 14.07.2015 drawn by the Commission
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1159
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

contained the names of the candidates who did not fulfil the eligibility A
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
B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 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.
B 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
C
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.
D 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
E
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
F 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
G 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
H consequence of which is to restore the Select list containing the names
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1161
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

of the candidates who do not fulfil the qualification for the post. It is A
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
B
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. C
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 D
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.
E
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 F
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. It is further
submitted that writ petitioners have challenged the select list after having
G
participated in the selection which challenge ought to have been repelled
by the High Court. The candidates who have taken chance of being
selected cannot turn around and challenge the selection having been
declared unsuccessful. He further submitted that writ petitioners have
never challenged the advertisement or qualifications in the
advertisement. H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 31. Shri Dave submits that in view of the Office Memorandum
dated 05.07.2013 issued by Managing Director of the Corporation which
was ex post facto approved by Board of Directors on 23.11.2015, the
requirement of having CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT was
done away with. He submits that there being no requirement of having
CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT, the certificates which were
B claimed by the respondents were certificates which fulfil the
qualification as prescribed in the advertisement.
32. It is submitted that it is for the employer or recruiting agency
to declare equivalence of certificate and the Commission having been
satisfied with the equivalent certificate claimed by the respondents,
C learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with declaration of
equivalence by the Commission. It is submitted that the respondents in
pursuance of select list dated 14.07.2015 were given appointment in
August, 2015 and had joined the post and worked for about three years
till their appointment was cancelled in May/June 2018.
D 33. It is further submitted that most of the respondents have also
obtained the CCC certificate before the date of interview and most of
the candidates who have been deleted from the revised select list now
are in possession of CCC certificates. He submits that in the present
selection, there are no allegation of mala fide and arbitrariness on the
part of Commission. He further submits that Regulations, 1995 which
E is statutory regulation for recruitment on the post of Technician Grade-
II does not require CCC certificate. Shri Dave submits that self-
certification is a mode which is prescribed in the advertisement itself.
The advertisement has now given a go-bye to CCC certificate by
DOEACC, there was no requirement of CCC certificate by DOEACC
F in the recruitment in question. He submits that ultimate conclusion of
Division Bench is correct, which judgment needs no interference by
this Court.
34. Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul in addition to submissions which have
been made by Shri Dushyant Dave contends that present is not a case
G where learned Single Judge ought to have exercised jurisdiction under
Article 226 to quash the select list. All the candidates, who were
selected in the select list dated 14.07.2015 have cleared the written test
and the interview and had obtained higher marks than the appellants.
The candidates who were included in the initial select list had obtained
different ITI and vocational certificates, which fulfil the necessary
H knowledge and requirement of computer qualification.
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1163
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

35. It is submitted that CCC certificate is a basic computer course A
and that the Commission having already found the candidates fulfilling
the qualification, learned Single Judge ought not to have substituted his
own view. The CCC certificate is a computer course which is a course
designed for common man. The respondents having worked for three
years are entitled to be allowed to continue on their post. He further
reiterates that several of the respondents had obtained CCC certificate B
prior to interview.
36. Shri Bharuka also adopted the submissions of Shri Dave and
Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul.
37. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for C
Corporation and the Commission has referred to writ petition of Rohit
Kumar which was filed challenging the action of the Commission
declaring several candidates disqualified in pursuance of judgment dated
07.10.2017 of learned Single Judge, which writ petition was dismissed
by learned Single Judge. The Division Bench also affirmed the judgment
of learned Single Judge in Rohit Kumar’s case. D
38. Shri Parag Tripathi had very candidly submitted that the
Commission or the Corporation did not carry out any exercise to find
out as to whether certificates submitted by the candidates were
equivalent to CCC certificate prior to declaring the select list on
14.07.2015. Shri Tripathi has referred to the counter affidavit filed by E
the Electricity Secretary/Member, Electricity Service Commission in Civil
Appeal No. 9026 of 2019, Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others. Shri Tripathi submits that in carrying out the
equivalence of CCC certificate the Commission has adopted the
guidelines given under the Government order dated 03.05.2016. He
submits that by subsequent Government Order dated 23.09.2016, F
Government of Uttar Pradesh extended the scope of Government Order
dated 03.05.2016 to all the posts of the Government Departments of
the State. He submits that in pursuance of the Order of learned Single
Judge dated 07.10.2017, Corporation constituted a committee to decide
criteria on the basis of which the equivalence of CCC could be decided. G
The Committee, comprised of eight Officers, carried out the exercise
consequent to which the revised select list was issued. After the
judgment of learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017, the candidature of
several candidates who were included in the select list dated 14.07.2015
were cancelled holding them not eligible, which action of the
Commission has received approval of High Court also. H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 39. We have considered the submissions of learned senior
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
40. From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
the pleadings on record, following points arise for consideration: -
(i) What is “Course on Computer Concept” (CCC)
B Certificate and the advertisement dated 06.09.2014
envisaged which CCC certificate?
(ii) Whether the advertisement dated 06.09.2014 envisaged
self-certification by the candidates of “equivalence” to
CCC certificate of their computer qualification and the
C self-certification by the candidates of their computer
qualification was sufficient to treat them having
possessed the required qualification?
(iii) Whether the Corporation or Commission had framed or
adopted any criteria or guidelines to determine
D “equivalence” to CCC certificate?
(iv) Whether any exercise was conducted by the
Commission in the process of recruitment to determine
“equivalence” of computer qualifications of those, who
did not possess CCC certificate?
E (v) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court has
rightly set aside the direction of learned Single Judge to
exclude those, who do not have CCC certificate?
(vi) Whether the learned Single Judge ought not to have
quashed the select list when the selected candidates
F were not impleaded in the writ petitions?
POINT NO.1
41. The Course on Computer Concept (CCC) certificate had been
issued by DOEACC Society and thereafter by National Institute of
Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), an Autonomous
G Scientific Society under the administrative control of Ministry of
Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India, set up to
carry out Human Resource Development and related activities in the
area of Information, Electronics & Communications Technology had
taken various steps. The Department of Electronics Accreditation
H Computer Courses (DOEACC) Society was formed in the year 1994
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1165
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

and registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. The A
management and administration of the Society is overseen by Governing
Council, under the chairmanship of the Minister of State,
Communications & Information Technology, Government of India.
Members of the Council consist of eminent academia from IITs,
Universities, etc. and professionals from the industry. Under the
B
DOEACC Scheme, computer training institutes/organizations in the non-
formal sector, subject to meeting well-defined norms and criteria, were
granted accreditation for conducting specified Levels of courses. The
different courses were accredited under the DOEACC Scheme.
Computer Course Certificate is one of such certificates, which was
being granted under the aegis of the DOEACC Society. The learned C
Single Judge in his judgment has extracted course contents of CCC
certificate, which is on pages 143 to 145 of paper book. The duration
of course is 80 Hours (Theory: 25 Hrs. + Practical: 50 Hrs. + Tutorial:
05 Hrs.), which can also be offered as 10 days full time intensive
course. Course contents envisages different chapters on the computer
D
knowledge and contents and detailed syllabus. The copy of the syllabus
of the CCC course has also been brought on the record as Annexure
P-14 running into 05 pages detailing - Introduction to computer;
Introduction to Gui Based Operating System; Elements of Word
Processing; Spread Sheet; Computer Communication and Internet,
WWW and Web Browser, Communication and Collaboration Making E
Small Presentations.
42. One of the certificates issued by DOEACC Society dated
10.05.2012 granted in favour of appellant – Mukul Tyagi has been
brought on record, which mentions that “the candidate appearing has
passed the examination of DOEACC Course on Computer Concepts.” F
The certificate further mentioned that “candidate is sponsored by
Anubhav Infotech Limited, [FR UPTEC], MEERUT”. Thus, CCC
certificate which was granted by DOEACC Society, which society is
now taken over by National Institute of Electronics and Information
Technology (NIELIT) functioning under Department of Information and
Technology and Ministry of Communication and Technology, G
Government of India. CCC certificate, thus, 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 H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 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. The learned Single Judge has returned a
finding that CCC certificate is granted only by NIELIT formerly known
as DOEACC Society. The following findings have been recorded by
B
learned Single Judge in this respect: -
“Although Sri Mishra contended that a CCC certificate can be
granted by any organisation, this was not backed by any material
or evidence. In fact, and to the contrary it appears on the basis
of the material placed before this Court that a CCC certificate
C
is granted only by NIELIT or centres recognised or accredited
to it.”
43. In the special appeal, which was filed against judgment of
learned Single Judge neither there was any ground nor any pleading
that CCC certificate is being granted by any other body or authority.
D
The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has not set aside the
above finding of learned Single Judge that CCC certificate is granted
only by NIELIT (formerly DOEACC Society).
44. One of the submissions, which has been advanced by Shri
Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the respondent is that the
E
requirement of CCC certificate by DOEACC Society, which was
provided for by O.M. dated 29.01.2011 was done away by O.M. Dated
05.07.2013 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, which
subsequently was ex-post facto approved on 23.11.2015, hence there
was no requirement of CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT. It is
F true that in the O.M. dated 29.01.2011 issued by the Corporation,
specific requirement was of CCC certificate issued by the DOEACC
Society as noted above. The recruitment on the above basis was held
by the Commission in the year 2011 for filling 2974 posts of Technician
Grade-II. The Managing Director on 05.07.2013 issued an O.M. where
in place of the CCC certificate by DOEACC as provided in O.M. dated
G
29.01.2011, it was provided that candidate must possess CCC certificate
or equivalent computer qualification, which advertisement dated
06.09.2014 was issued containing the computer qualification as
mentioned in the O.M. dated 05.07.2013. When the Managing Director
referred to Course on Computer Concept (CCC) in the O.M. dated
H 05.07.2013, where he mentions that CCC certificate, it cannot be held
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1167
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

that CCC certificate by DOEACC or NIELIT was not contemplated. A
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
B
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 C
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. Thus, the true determination,
which was to be done with regard to an equivalent computer certificate
relied by candidate was to find out whether it was equivalent to CCC
D
certificate or not. But the change in the qualification by Managing
Director by O.M. dated 05.07.2013 cannot be read to mean that in the
CCC certificate or equivalent computer qualification, the equivalence
was to be found out and in which it shall not include only the CCC
certificate issued by DOEACC or NIELIT. Any other view shall not
be in the interest of either Corporation or Commission. E
45. 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. One of the applicants, who had filed F
self-declaration of equivalence of his qualification has made following
statement ‘as quoted by learned single Judge in his judgment’: -
“...I, Abhijit Kumar son of Shri Birender Pandey do hereby
declare that Computer Certificate produced by me at the time
of interview for the post of Advertisement No.4/Visea/2014 G
Technician Grade-2 (Electricity) is equivalent to the Course
‘CCC’ conducted includes in it.
In case Computer Certificate produced by me is not found
equivalent to ‘CCC’, then whatever decision would be taken by
the Power Service Commission about candidature, the same H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A would be acceptable to me. Even if my candidature is cancelled/
rejected, then I would not make any kind of claim...”
46. Learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 07.10.2017 had
quashed the select list only to the extent it includes candidates who did
not hold CCC certificate conferred or recognised by NIELIT.
B The operative portion of the judgment of learned single Judge is as
follows: -
“.....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 is quashed.
C The respondents shall in consequence redraw the select list
restricting it to candidates who hold a recognised CCC certificate
or a qualification recognised in law as being equivalent thereto.
The Commission shall as a result of the above, reframe the merit
list and publish the results thereof afresh. All consequences to
D follow.”
47. As noted above, the Commission and the Corporation
accepted the judgment of learned 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
E
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.
F 48. It is useful to refer to letter written by Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation Limited dated 29.01.2018 to Secretary, Electricity Service
Commission, which is to the following effect: -
“Secretary
Electricity Service Commission
G U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
S.L.D.C. Premises, Near Minister House,
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
Subject:- In the context of ensuring
compliance of decision taken
H in the 136(08)th meeting of
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1169
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Board of Directors held on A
17.01.2018 for determination
of the equivalence of the
‘CCC’ certificates issued
by NIELIT/D.O.E.A.C.C.
Sir, B
Please accept the reference to the comments No. Nil dated
30.12.2017 by which the recommendation dated 28.12.2017 given
by the committee formed by Office Memorandum No.354 and
355 regulations/Pakali 2017-7regulation/17 dated 19.12.2017 for
determination of the equivalence of the ‘CCC’ certificates issued
C
by NIELIT/DOEACC has been sent for the approval of Board
of Directors.
Matter was presented to board of directors in the 136(08)th
meeting of Board of Directors held on 17.01.2018, in which
approval was given for determination of the equivalence of the
‘CCC’ certificate issued by NIELIT/DOEACC in following D
terms: -
Director(P&A) informed that in compliance of the judgment
dated 07.10.2017 passed in writ petition No.41750 of 2015 a
committee was formed under the chairmanship of Director(P&A)
for determination of the equivalence of the ‘CCC’ certificate/ E
course issued by other institutions and their validity in which the
approval was given to act as per the provisions of G.O. No.2/
2016/3/1/2015-ka-2 dated 03.05.2016.
Board of Directors while approving the recommendation given
by the above committee directed for inclusion of all latest G.O.’s F
issued by the U.P. Government after G.O.No. 2/2016/3/1/2015-
ka-2 dated 03.05.2016 for determination of the equivalence of
the ‘CCC’ certificate.
End: Attaching the photocopy of the above decision of the Board
of Directors I was instructed to say that in the said matter ensure G
compliance as per above.
Your’s faithfully
(Rakesh Bhatt)
Deputy Secretary
(Regulation and Ka.Vi.Ni.)” H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A 49. The candidates who had CCC certificate from NIELIT/
DOEACC and who were included in the merit list dated 14.07.2015
were not affected by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
07.10.2017 since the list was quashed only insofar as those candidates
included in the merit list who did not have CCC certificate by NIELIT/
DOEACC. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has
B
erroneously held that employer after judgment dated 07.10.2017 did not
take into consideration the CCC Certificate of DOEACC or NIELIT.
Following are the observations made by Division Bench in this
regard: -
“...Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of rival parties.
C At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that the
employer after accepting the judgment given by learned Single
Bench has prepared a fresh select list and, while doing so, the
certificate issued by DOEACC relating to “CCC” has not been
taken into consideration....”
D 50. The Division Bench was not correct in making above
observations since neither the learned Single Judge vide its judgment
dated 07.10.2017 directed for not taking into consideration CCC
certificate by DOEACC nor Corporation or Commission deleted those
names from the merit list who had CCC certificate from DOEACC.
E 51. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that CCC certificate
as mentioned in the advertisement dated 14.09.2014 was CCC
certificate as granted by NIELIT/DOEACC.
POINT NO.2

F 52. 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. One
of the self-declarations we have extracted above.
G
53. We need to find out as to whether the advertisement
envisaged self-certification by the candidates that their computer
qualification is equivalent to CCC. Clause (7) of the advertisement
relates with submission of testimonials in support of qualification and
other certificates. Clause (7) refers to self-attested and signed
H photocopies of qualification certificates/ marksheets/ caste certificates
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1171
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

etc. For ready reference, clause (7) of the advertisement is as A
follows: -
“7. Submission of qualification and other certificates: -
Candidates would be allowed to appear in written test
provisionally on the basis of information made available by
candidate in online application. Candidates would not earn right B
to selection merely on appearing in written test. Candidate would
deposit self-attested & signed photocopies of qualification
certificates/mark sheets/ caste certificate/ domicile certificate/
certificate concerning with computer/ certificate of dependant of
Freedom Fighter and certificate of Ex-servicemen (as defined C
in Government orders and who have rendered minimum 05 years’
service in Army) (leaving those which are irrelevant) concerning
with qualifications for advertised post at the time of interview
with printout of online application. Certificates concerning with
qualifications of candidates invited for interview who are declared
successful in written test, would be scrutinized at different levels. D
In case of giving/receiving any kind of wrong information, right
to cancel candidature at any stage and depriving of the selection
process without any notice is reserved.
Note:
E
(1) Certificate of Electrician Trade only would be
admissible.
(2) Technical Certificate equivalent to it obtained thorough
Distant Education Systems or on the basis of experience
or desired trade would not be admissible.” F
54. It is further relevant to notice that the above 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
G
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 H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A declared successful in written test, could be scrutinised.” The Clause
(7) does not contemplates any self-declaration or self-certification of
equivalence of computer qualification of the candidate. The
advertisement neither envisaged nor permitted the candidates to give
any self-certification or self-declaration that their computer qualification
is equivalent to CCC.
B
55. 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
C 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
D 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 self-declaration 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.
E
56. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has held that
self-certification by the candidates of equivalence of their computer
qualification was sufficient to treat them eligible. The Division Bench
has further observed that no error was committed by employer
(Recruiting Agency) in relying on self-declaration by the candidates for
F computer qualification equivalent to CCC. Following observations have
been made in the impugned judgment:-
“....In present days, computer literacy is just equivalent to letter
literacy in earlier days. For letter literacy, self-certification was
always acceptable and in line of the same, the computer literacy
G on self-certification can very well be accepted. In this factual
background, we are of considered opinion that the employer did
not commit any wrong while having a declaration on basis of self-
certification for computer literacy equivalent to CCC....”
57. We are unable to concur with the above view taken by the
H Division Bench. Scrutiny of Computer qualification claimed by candidate
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1173
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

to be equivalent to CCC certificate is the obligation and duty of the A
recruiting agency/employer as per the advertisement itself as noted
above. 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 does not
B
fulfil the mandatory qualification as per the advertisement.
58. In view of the foregoing discussions, we conclude that
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
C
computer qualification was not sufficient to treat them having passed
the required qualification.
POINT NOS.3, 4 AND 5 TOGETHER
59. The Corporation or the Commission had not brought on record
either before the High Court or before this Court any guidelines or D
criteria to determine equivalence to CCC certificate. High Court has
noticed the submission of learned counsel for the Commission that on
22.01.2015, a decision was taken by the respondent to treat certificates
granted upon culmination of a course spread over three months or 80
Hours as equivalent to CCC certificate. The above submission of
E
learned counsel for the Commission itself indicates that no criteria or
guideline was framed either by Commission or Corporation before
proceeding with the recruitment. 27.01.2015 is the date by which both
written examination and interviews were over. The scrutiny of eligibility
of candidates was required to be made at-least before the candidates
appeared for interview. In the call letters, which were issued to the F
candidates for interview, the candidates were required to bring several
documents and certificates. One of the requirements as mentioned in
the call letter for interview in clause 5 is as follows:-
“’CCC’ computer course qualification certificate or any other
equivalent certificate.” G
60. It is relevant to note that 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 H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A to CCC was provided for as a mandatory qualification, it was incumbent
on the Corporation as well as on the recruitment agency to reflect on
the said issue and to lay down criteria or guidelines to declare
equivalence of the CCC certificate. It is, thus, clearly proved from
the record that no criteria or guidelines were framed or determined either
by the Corporation or the Commission before completion of the
B
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
C do not possess CCC certificates is abdication of duty and obligation,
both by Corporation and the Commission. It has been noted by learned
Single Judge in his judgment that it was only after direction by the Court
in the writ petition, the Corporation and Commission became alive to
the obligation, which was on them to find out equivalence.
D 61. We have already held that 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” in following manner:-
E
“Equivalent. Equal in worth or value.
Equal in value, measure, force, effect etc.
Equivalent, Equal. Equal expresses the fact that two things agree
in anything which is capable of degree, e.g., in quantity, quality,
F value, bulk, number, proportion, rate, rank and the like.
Equivalent is equal in such properties as affect ourselves or the
use which we make of things, such as value, force, power, effect
impact and the like (as) “Equivalent of money.”
62. When issue is of the equivalence of a qualification, which is
G
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
H equivalent qualification. The CCC certificate is issued by DOEACC/
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1175
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

NIELIT, which is on a particular syllabus. Syllabus of the CCC A
certificate is placed before us 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 has been
done by the Corporation or the Commission to determine the equivalence
B
of the qualification claimed by the candidates, who had not passed CCC
certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT. Learned Single Judge has, after
consideration of materials on record, made following observations:-
“As is evident from the above discussion, the question of
equivalence was left to hinge solely upon a self-declaration of
C
the candidate. Neither the Corporation nor the Commission had
any list of recognised equivalent certificates to guide them on
the subject. The policy on equivalence which came about on 27
January, 2015 was a decision taken not only too late but as noted
above suffered from fundamental flaws. There was a complete
and evident lack of enquiry on course content. Leaving these D
issues to be decided solely on the basis of a self-declaration of
candidates is unequivocal evidence of a failure to exercise
powers and an abject abdication of functions vesting in the
Commission. More fundamentally, none of the certificates other
than CCC were shown or established to be a legally recognised
E
equivalent.”
63. This Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food
Corporation of India and Others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and
Others, (2017) 8 SCC 670, in paragraph 570 laid down following:-
“56. …………………Where the State embarks upon public F
employment, it is under the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 to
follow the principle of equal opportunity. Affirmative action in our
Constitution is part of the quest for substantive equality. Available
resources and the opportunities provided in the form of public
employment are in contemporary times short of demands and
needs. Hence, the procedure for selection, and the prescription G
of eligibility criteria has a significant public element in enabling
the State to make a choice amongst competing claims. The
selection of ineligible persons is a manifestation of a systemic
failure and has a deleterious effect on good governance. Firstly,
selection of a person who is not eligible allows someone who is H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A ineligible to gain access to scarce public resources. Secondly, the
rights of eligible persons are violated since a person who is not
eligible for the post is selected. Thirdly, an illegality is perpetrated
by bestowing benefits upon an imposter
undeservingly…………………”
B 64. In the process of recruitment, the Commission included the
candidates in the select list, who claimed equivalent qualification to CCC
certificate. Without any scrutiny, the inclusion of persons with whom
there was no satisfaction by the Commission that their qualification was
equivalent to CCC is nothing but permitting unqualified persons to be
included in the select list. We, thus, conclude that neither there was
C
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
D Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned judgment has not
overturned the findings of the learned 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. The
E Division Bench approved the action of the employer and the Commission
to rely on self-certification and has held:-
“In this factual background, we are of considered opinion that
the employer did not commit any wrong while having a
declaration on basis of self-certification for computer literacy
F equivalent to CCC.”
65. The above view of the Division Bench cannot be approved
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
G
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. The Division Bench set aside the direction of
learned Single Judge by which learned Single Judge had directed to
H exclude those, who did not have the CCC certificates. The direction
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1177
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

of the learned Single Judge as extracted above is in two parts. Learned A
Single Judge directed :- (i) 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 is quashed;
(ii) The respondents shall in consequence redraw the select list
restricting it to candidates who hold a recognised CCC certificate or a
B
qualification recognised in law as being equivalent thereto.
66. The above direction indicates that select list insofar as the
candidates, who had certificates from NIELIT/DOEACC was not
quashed, their position in select list was not disturbed and select list
was partly quashed only with regard to those candidates, who did not
have CCC or NIELIT certificate. The object or purpose of the direction C
was to scrutinise the qualifications of those candidates, who have
claimed equivalent certificate. The above direction of the learned Single
Judge was only for the purpose to scrutinise the qualification of those
candidates, who are found possessing equivalent computer qualification
so as to retain their names in the select list. After the judgment of D
learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017, the Commission in revising the
merit list accepted the guidelines given under the Government Order
dated 03.05.2016. The guidelines prescribed under the Government
Order dated 03.05.2016 are as follows: -
“a) The qualification of High School or Intermediate
E
examination with an independent subject or
Computer Science from Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, Uttar Pradesh or from any Institution/
Education Board/Council established by the Central
or any State Government.
b) If any candidate has obtained Diploma or Degree F
in Computer Science then he shall also be eligible
to be recruited as Junior Assistant/Stenographer.”
Thus, 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 G
equivalent to CCC and were given place in the merit list subject to
marks secured by them in the written test and interview.
67. The Division Bench opined that self-certification by the
candidates for the qualification was sufficient to uphold the earlier action
of the recruitment agency in which candidates were included without H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A scrutiny of equivalent certificate. The direction of the learned Single
Judge was in accordance with law and has done substantial justice,
which did not deserve to be set aside by the Division Bench. We may
further notice that after the exercise undertaken by the Commission
for redetermining the select list, large number of candidates, whose
certificates were not found equivalent to CCC certificates were deleted
B
from the select list. Some of the candidates whose names were deleted
from the select list due to their qualification having not found equivalent
had filed the writ petitions in the High Court. One Writ Petition of Rohit
(Writ Petition No. 13216 of 2018 -Rohit Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others),
whose name was deleted on 13.05.2018 has been referred to and relied
C by the appellants. A special appeal was also filed by Rohit against the
dismissal of the writ petition where Division Bench upheld the judgment
of learned Single Judge holding that writ petitioner of that petition having
not possessed CCC certificate was rightly excluded from the select list.
68. Thus, the deletion of names of certain candidates from the
D 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
E judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained.
POINT NO.6
69. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent has submitted that candidates in the select list being not
before the learned Single Judge, they had no opportunity to place their
F case and the learned Single Judge erred in quashing the select list, which
judgment of the learned Single Judge is in clear breach of principles of
natural justice.
70. It is true that all the names, who were in the select list were
not impleaded in the writ petition, which was filed challenging the select
G
list dated 14.07.2015 and subsequent select list. For example, in the
Writ Petition No. 41750 of 2015 – Prashant Kumar Jaiswal and 12
Others Vs. State of U.P. and 10 Others, which was lead writ petition,
there were select candidates impleaded though in representative capacity,
which fact has been noticed by learned Single Judge in the impugned
H judgment in following words: -
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1179
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

“……………The petitions have arrayed various selected A
candidates in representative capacity. Although the said
candidates were represented by counsels, none appeared or
advanced submissions on their behalf. On behalf of none of the
selected candidates, Sri Nandan alone has appeared in Writ-A.
NO. 18129 of 2017.” B
71. Shri Dave placing reliance on Ashok Kumar and Another
Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357 contends that
the candidates, who have participated in the process could not have
been allowed to challenge the selection. This Court in paragraphs 13
to 19 laid down following: - C
“13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several
decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v.
Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, this Court laid down
the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination
without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful,
D
a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of
entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise
where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she
cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process
was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because
the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, E
(2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that: (SCC p. 107, para 18)
“18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken
part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure
laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See
Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 and F
Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006)
12 SCC 724.)”
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah,
(2009) 3 SCC 227, wherein it was held to be well settled that
the candidates who have taken part in a selection process G
knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not
entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC
576, the same principle was reiterated in the following
observations: (SCC p. 584, para 16) H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A “16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken
part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than
19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner
is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection.
Surely, if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he
B would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The
petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name
does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This
conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning
the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by
C
refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection
may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K,
(1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P.,
(2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal,
(2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam,
D (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines,
(2009) 5 SCC 515.”
16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission,
(2011) 1 SCC 150, candidates who had participated in the
selection process were aware that they were required to possess
E certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The
appellants had appeared in the selection process and after
participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection
process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be
impermissible.
F
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC
309 candidates who were competing for the post of
Physiotherapist in the State of Uttarakhand participated in a
written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This
Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would
G not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the
methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was
held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under
Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to
challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This
H Court held that: (SCC p. 318, para 18)
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1181
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

“18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part A
in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and
question the method of selection and its outcome.”
18. In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC
521, it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or
chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process B
cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection
was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep
Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493, this
Court held that: (SCC p. 500, para 17)
“17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on C
one more point that the appellants had participated in the
process of interview and not challenged it till the results were
declared. There was a gap of almost four months between
the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants
did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when
the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they D
challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The
candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.
Either the candidates should not have participated in the
interview and challenged the procedure or they should have
challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.” E
This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras
Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan,
(2016) 1 SCC 454.
19. In the present case, regard must be had to the fact that the
appellants were clearly on notice, when the fresh selection F
process took place that written examination would carry ninety
marks and the interview, ten marks. The appellants participated
in the selection process. Moreover, two other considerations
weigh in balance. The High Court noted in the impugned
judgment1 that the interpretation of Rule 6 was not free from G
vagueness. There was, in other words, no glaring or patent
illegality in the process adopted by the High Court. There was
an element of vagueness about whether Rule 6 which dealt with
promotion merely incorporated the requirement of an examination
provided in Rule 5 for direct recruitment to Class III posts or
whether the marks and qualifying marks were also incorporated. H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A Moreover, no prejudice was established to have been caused to
the appellants by the 90 : 10 allocation.”
72. The present is a case where writ petitioners were not
aggrieved by any qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement. The
cause of action had arisen to them to seek judicial review only when
B the persons, who do not fulfil the essential qualifications were included
in the select list.
73. Further, before issuance of appointment letters to the selected
candidates an order was passed in writ petition on 31.07.2015 which
has been extracted above wherein learned counsel appearing for
C corporation had made a statement that no final decision will be taken
in pursuance of impugned select list. The High Court by its order dated
17.02.2016, extracted above has made all appointments subject to the
result of the writ petition.
74. There is one more aspect which needs to be noted. The
Commission had obtained an undertaking from the candidates who had
D
claimed that they have equivalent qualification to CCC that in event
their qualification is not found equivalent to CCC, whatever decision
will be taken by the Commission same will be acceptable to him. One
of such letters given by one of the candidates has been brought on
record as Annexure P-3 in the short Rejoinder-Affidavit on behalf of
E petitioners in SLP(C) No.12943 of 2018 (Now Civil Appeal No.9026
of 2019), which is to the following effect: -
“To,
Secretary,
Power Service Commission,
F
U.P. Power Corporation Limited
Lucknow.
Sub:- Regarding equivalency of ‘CCC’ Certificate of Computer.
Sir,
G
I, Abhijeet Kumar son of Birendra Pandey do hereby declare
that Computer Certificate submitted by me at the time of interview
for the post of Technician Grade-2(Power) Under Advertisement
No.4/PSC/2014, is equivalent to Course ‘CCC’ conducted by
NIELIT and the complete course covered under ‘CCC’ includes
H in it.
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1183
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

In case Computer Certificate submitted by me is not found A
equivalent to ‘CCC’, then whatever decision will be then by the
Power Service Commission about my candidature, the same
would be acceptable to me. In case my candidature is rejected,
I will not raise any kind of claim.
Dated 02.01.2015 B
Sd/-
(ABHIJEET KUMAR)
Roll No.2013120008"
75. The present is a case where the writ petitioners had not raised
any challenge to a particular qualification of any individual candidate C
rather their challenge was that without scrutiny large number of
candidates, who were claiming qualification equivalent to CCC
certificate have been included without there being any scrutiny and
without they fulfil the qualification. The case of the writ petitioners was
that the computer certificate issued by the private organisations and D
unregistered societies, who neither were recognised by the State
Government or Central Government or by any statutory body could not
issue any certificate. We may further notice that Division Bench also
noticed the above argument of non-impleadment of all the selected
candidates in the writ petition but Division Bench has not based its
E
judgment on the above argument. 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 F
of the challenge, which was levelled in the writ petition. Moreover, few
selected candidates were also impleaded in the writ petitions in
representative capacity.
76. For the reasons as noted above, we are of the opinion that
the judgment of learned Single Judge cannot be faulted on the ground G
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.
77. One of the submissions, which has been made by learned
counsel for the appellant appearing in Civil Appeal No. 9028 of 2019 –
Ravi Prakash & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. is that H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 16 S.C.R.

A although the names of the appellants have not been included in the
original select list or revised select list, but there being number of
vacancies due to non-joining and resignation and they having computer
certificate equivalent to CCC certificate, the respondent be directed to
fill those vacancies by persons, who are next in the order of merit. It
is submitted that appellants are those who have CCC certificates. We
B
may observe that the fact that there are several vacancies due to non-
joining 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
C Corporation.
78. One more submission, which has been advanced by learned
counsel appearing for those candidates, who were initially in the select
list dated 14.07.2015 and went out of the select list due to redrawing
of select list is that there are still vacancies on which they can be
D accommodated, it is submitted that equities have to be adjusted by this
Court in facts of this case. The candidates, who were already in the
select list dated 14.07.2015 were appointed in August, 2015 and worked
for about 03 years, which is a factor, which may be sympathetically
considered by this Court. We only observe that these are the issues,
which need to be addressed to the Corporation. Whether the existing
E 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 we
need not issue any direction in that regard. We, however, observe that
there shall be liberty to such candidates to represent to the Corporation,
F which is the authority, to take a decision in accordance with law.
79. In view of the foregoing discussions, we allow all the appeals
and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench dated 09.05.2019 and
restore the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
G
Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.

H