Supreme Court of India
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 832
- Decided
- 5 November 2024
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
Holding
Candidates who possessed and produced a valid CCC certificate at the interview could not have their services terminated, and they must be reinstated with seniority and benefits.
Summary
The Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation (UPPCL) advertised for 2,211 Technician Grade‑II posts requiring a Certificate of 80‑hour Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) to be produced at the interview. Candidates who produced the CCC certificate at the interview were selected and issued appointment letters on 14 July 2015. A High Court Single Judge later quashed the select list only for candidates lacking a CCC certificate recognized by NIELIT, directing a redraw of the list. The Corporation, however, terminated the services of all selected candidates, including those who had produced a valid CCC certificate at the interview, citing a later interpretation of eligibility dates. The Supreme Court held that the advertisement and the 1995 Service Regulations mandated production of the CCC certificate at the interview, and therefore those candidates could not be lawfully terminated. Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142, the Court ordered the reinstatement of the affected candidates with seniority and benefits, rejecting the Corporation’s contrary stance.
Issues considered
- Whether candidates who produced a valid CCC certificate at the time of interview are eligible for appointment despite the later direction to redraw the select list.
- Whether the termination of services of such candidates by the Corporation is lawful.
- Whether the Supreme Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to reinstate the candidates.
Legislation cited
Subjects
TerminationSelection to the post of Technician Grade-IICourse on computer concepts certificateEquivalent computer qualification certificateEducational qualificationSelect listAppointment lettersUnsuccessful candidatesCCC certificate conferred or recognized by NIELITRe-draw the select listElectricity Service CommissionRe-instatementEligible candidatesExtraordinary jurisdiction u/Art.142 of the Constitution
Judgment
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 428 : 2024 INSC 832
Mukul Kumar Tyagi
v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Miscellaneous Application No. 2399 of 2024
in
(Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019)
05 November 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the services of such of the candidates
who were selected in the select list and had produced the Course
on computer concepts-CCC certificate at the time of the interview
could have been terminated.
Headnotes†
Service law – Termination – Selection to the post of Technician
Grade-II – Course on computer concepts certificate or its
equivalent computer qualification certificate mandatory
educational qualification to be submitted at the time of
interview – Written exam and interview held and final select list
prepared – Issuance of appointment letters to the applicants –
Challenge to, by unsuccessful candidates – Single Judge of
the High Court quashed the select list insofar as it included
candidates who did not hold CCC certificate conferred or
recognized by NIELIT – Also directed the Corporation to
re-draw the select list – Thereafter, Electricity Service
Commission published the list of candidates whose selection
was not found to be in accordance with the eligibility as per
the direction of the Single Judge – Consequently, their services
were terminated – List contained names of the applicants –
Writ appeal by applicants – Division Bench allowed the same
setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Single
Judge – Appeal thereagainst wherein this Court set aside
the judgment passed by the Division Bench upholding that
of the Single Judge – Writ Petition by applicants seeking
re-instatement which was dismissed – Correctness:
Held: When the advertisement as well as the 1995 Regulations
required the CCC certificate to be produced at the time of interview,
* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 429
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
if it is permitted to produce the same subsequent to the date of
interview, it would be contrary to the advertisement and the 1995
Regulations – Corporation misinterpreted the judgment of the
Single Judge and terminated the services of the applicants who
were otherwise entitled to be continued as per the judgment –
Services of such of the candidates who were selected in the
select list and had produced the CCC certificate at the time of the
interview could not have been terminated – Corporation grossly
erred in terminating their services – Furthermore, this Court held
that the object and purpose of the direction by the Single Judge
was to scrutinize the qualifications of those candidates, who had
claimed equivalent certificate, those who were found possessing
equivalent computer qualification so as to retain their names in the
select list – Direction given by the Single Judge was applicable,
apart from the candidates who were having CCC certificate from
DOEACC/NIELIT, to the candidates who were covered under the
guidelines and were also treated as equivalent to CCC certificate –
Corporation has been taking contradictory stands – Before the High
Court, it took a stand that not only such candidates having CCC
certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT but also such candidates
who had submitted certificate by self-certification were entitled to
be considered and thereafter, took a stand that the candidates who
did not have CCC certificate on the last date of application could
not be considered as eligible candidates – Stand was contrary not
only to the advertisement but also to the office memorandum of
the Board – Submission of the candidates who did not have CCC
certificate even on the date of their interview but have obtained
the same subsequently cannot be accepted – Thus, fit case to
exercise extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art.142 of the Constitution –
Applicants who found place in the select list and who possessed/
produced the CCC certificate at the time of their interview to be
reinstated forthwith. [Paras 20-29]
Case Law Cited
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
[2019] 16 SCR 1145 : (2020) 4 SCC 86 : 2019 INSC 1380 –
referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999; Uttar Pradesh
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948; U.P. State Power Parishad Operative
Employees Cadre Service Regulations, 1995; Constitution of India.
430 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Termination; Selection to the post of Technician Grade-II; Course
on computer concepts certificate; Equivalent computer qualification
certificate; Educational qualification; Select list; Appointment
letters; Unsuccessful candidates; CCC certificate conferred or
recognized by NIELIT; Re-draw the select list; Electricity Service
Commission; Re-instatement; Eligible candidates; Extraordinary
jurisdiction u/Art.142 of the Constitution.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
No. 2399 of 2024
In
Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2019 of the Supreme
Court of India in C.A. No. 9026 of 2019
With
M.A. 2400 of 2024 in C.A. No. 9026 of 2019, 2401 of 2024 in
C.A. No. 9026 of 2019, C.A. 12197 of 2024.
Appearances for Parties
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Jayant Nath, Amit Anand Tiwari, Sanjay Nuli,
Rana Mukherjee, S.K. Saxena, Ms. Garima Prasad, Sanjay Hegde
Sr. Advs., Ms. Deepti Singh, Krishna M. Singh, Rajivkumar, Ms.
Gargi Srivastava, Ms. Daisy Hannah, Arpit Shukla, Abhinav Sharma,
Vikas Jain, Aviral Saxena, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Abhinav Singh,
Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Ms. Priya Sharma, Ms. Rajeshri Nivuratirao
Reddy, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh, Ms. Kumud
Lata Das, Manoj Singh, Mohit Garg, Harsh Ajay Singh, Ms. Pooja
Rathore, Advs for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 23273 of 2023.
2. The present applications/appeal have been filed praying for a direction
to the concerned authority to re-appoint the applicants on the post
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 431
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation
Limited (hereinafter referred to as “respondent-Corporation”) who were
appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 6th September 2014,
by setting aside the termination letter dated 13th May 2018 issued by
the respondent-Corporation against the applicants herein.
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present applications/appeal are
as given below:
3.1 The erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board under
the Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, promulgated
the U.P. State Power Parishad Operative Employees Cadre
Service Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “1995
Regulations”).
3.2 With the enactment of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms
Act, 1999, the U.P. State Electricity Board ceased to exist and
was replaced by the respondent-Corporation.
3.3 The respondent-Corporation adopted the 1995 Regulations
which prescribed the method of filling-up posts of Technician
Grade-II and set out the educational qualifications in relation
thereto.
3.4 By an office memorandum dated 29 th January 2011, the
Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation amended
the 1995 Regulations thereby prescribing that all incumbents
seeking selection to the post of Technician Grade-II would be
liable to hold a Certificate of 80 Hours Course on Computer
Concepts (hereinafter referred to as “CCC certificate”) issued
by Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer
Courses (hereinafter referred to as “DOEACC”) and would
need to produce the same certificate at the time of interview.
3.5 By an office memorandum dated 25th November 2011, the
respondent-Corporation provided that an equivalent computer
eligibility qualification to CCC certificate issued by DOEACC
would also be accepted.
3.6 On 6th September 2014, the respondent-Corporation issued an
advertisement, thereby inviting applications for appointments
against 2,211 posts of Technician Grade-II (Electrical).
Possession of CCC certificate or its equivalent computer
432 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
qualification certificate was one of the mandatory educational
qualifications prescribed in paragraph 2 of the advertisement. In
terms of paragraph 7 of the advertisement, the candidates were
required to submit the CCC certificate at the time of interview.
3.7 On 8th November 2014, a written examination was conducted
and the applicants herein qualified the written examination.
The applicants herein, thereafter, appeared in the interview
conducted during the period from December 2014 to July 2015.
3.8 On 14th July 2015, the final selection list was prepared and
published. The applicants herein were issued appointment
letters.
3.9 On 25th July 2015, the unsuccessful candidates preferred a
Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court being Writ-A
No. 41750 of 2015 and other connected petitions seeking
quashing of the select list dated 14th July 2015, and revision of
the select list by excluding those candidates who had obtained
CCC certificate on dates subsequent to 30th September 2014
as also those candidates who did not possess CCC certificate
as awarded by DOEACC, since renamed as National Institute
of Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter referred
to as “NIELIT”).
3.10 Vide final judgment and order dated 7th October 2017, the Single
Judge of the Allahabad High Court quashed the select list in
question insofar as it includes candidates who do not hold a
CCC certificate conferred or recognized by NIELIT. Further, the
Single Judge directed the respondents therein to re-draw the
select list restricting it to the candidates who hold a recognized
CCC certificate or a qualification recognized in law as being
equivalent thereto.
3.11 Accordingly, on 13th October 2017, the Electricity Service
Commission, UPPCL, directed the Chief Engineer(s) and
Superintending Engineer(s) to send the attested photocopies
of CCC certificates of selected candidates on the 2,211 posts
of Technician Grade-II (Electrical) and to check at their own
level, whether the CCC certificate attached is issued by an
institution recognized by NIELIT (formerly DOEACC) or its
equivalent or not.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 433
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
3.12 Thereafter, on 13th May 2018, the Electricity Service Commission,
UPPCL, published the list of candidates whose selection was not
found to be in accordance with the eligibility as per the direction of
the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court contained
in Writ-A No. 41750/2015 and other connected petitions. The
aforesaid list contained the names of the applicants herein.
3.13 Aggrieved thereby, the applicants herein filed a Writ Appeal
before the Allahabad High Court being Special Appeal No. 585
of 2018 and connected petitions.
3.14 Vide final judgment and order dated 9th May 2019, a Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the Special Appeals
filed inter-alia by the applicants herein and set aside the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Petitions
were dismissed. Further, the respondents therein were directed
to restore the position relating to the entire process of selection
including the appointments of selected incumbents as that was
prior to acceptance of the writ petitions.
3.15 Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court, a number of appeals were
filed before this Court.
3.16 Vide final judgment and order dated 16th December 2019 in
Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019 and other connected appeals
titled Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others,1 this Court allowed the appeals and set aside
the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court. In paragraph 71, this Court observed
that the direction of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High
Court, 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.
3.17 Thereafter, the applicants herein filed a Writ Petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution being Writ Petition (C) No. 1144
of 2022 with a prayer for a direction to the respondents therein
1 [2019] 16 SCR 1145 : (2020) 4 SCC 86 : 2019 INSC 1380
434 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to restore/re-instate them in their respective positions in their
services, as the termination was against the true letter and
spirit of the judgment dated 16th December 2019 passed by
this Court in the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi (supra).
3.18 This Court, vide order dated 30th January 2023, dismissed
the Writ Petition filed by the applicants herein, however, in
the peculiar facts and circumstances, granted liberty to the
applicants to file an appropriate application in the disposed of
Civil Appeal (No. 9026 of 2019) with connected matters and
directed the Registry to entertain the same.
3.19 In such facts, the present applications/appeal have come up
for hearing before this Court.
4. We have heard Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, Shri Amit Anand Tiwari and
Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the applicants. We have also heard Shri S.K. Saxena, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation
and Electricity Service Commission.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants
submitted that, as a matter of fact, vide Office Memorandum
dated 29th January 2011, the 1995 Regulations were amended
thereby prescribing that all incumbents seeking selection to the
post of Technician Grade-II would be required to produce the CCC
certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT at the time of interview. It is
submitted that all such candidates who were selected in pursuance to
the said selection process and having the CCC certificate on the date
of the interview were eligible to be continued. It is submitted that the
interview process continued for a long period from December 2014
to July 2015. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of the
High Court vide its judgment and order dated 7th October 2017 had
set aside the selection process only of such candidates who did not
possess the CCC certificate.
6. It is therefore submitted on behalf of the applicants that the approach
of the respondent-Corporation in setting aside the selection process
even of such candidates who possessed the CCC certificate at the
time of interview on the ground that they did not possess the same
on the last date of application i.e. 30th September 2014 is totally
erroneous.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 435
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
7. Insofar as the plea of Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel
is concerned, he submitted that, as per the advertisement, even such
of the candidates who did not possess the CCC certificate at the
time of interview but had obtained the same prior to the last date of
the interview i.e. 4th July 2015 are entitled to be continued in service
and their selection could not have been set aside.
8. Shri Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Corporation, on the contrary, submitted that, it is a settled
position of law that the requisite qualification has to be obtained prior
to the last date of submission of application. It is submitted that, as
such, the candidates who possessed CCC certificate on the date of
interview but did not possess the same on the last date of submission
of application are not entitled to be continued. It is therefore submitted
that the respondent-Corporation has rightly terminated the services
of such of the candidates.
9. The present applications arise out of peculiar facts and circumstances.
The Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation, vide office
memorandum dated 29th January 2011, amended the 1995 Regulations
which provided that all incumbents seeking selection to the post of
Technician Grade-II would be required to hold the CCC certificate
issued by DOEACC/ NIELIT. The amended resolution required CCC
certificate to be mandatorily possessed by the candidates at the
time of interview.
10. By another office memorandum dated 25th November 2011, the
respondent-Corporation provided that an equivalent computer
eligibility qualification to CCC certificate issued by the DOEACC
would also be accepted.
11. On 6th September 2014, the respondent-Corporation issued an
advertisement thereby inviting applications for appointments against
2,211 posts of Technician Grade-II (Electrical). The said advertisement
provided two mandatory qualifications. The first one being the High
School or its equivalent examination of Board of Higher Secondary
Education, U.P. passed with Science & Mathematics subjects and All
India/State Professional Certificate in Electrical Trade. The second
qualification required a CCC certificate or its equivalent computer
qualification certificate. As per clause 7 of the said advertisement,
merely permitting a candidate to appear in the written test would
436 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
not earn him/her a right to selection. It was also provided that the
scrutiny of the certificates of the candidates would be carried out at
different levels.
12. In pursuance of the said advertisement, a written examination was
conducted on 8th November 2014. The interviews were held from
December 2014 to July 2015. The final selection list was prepared
and published on 14th July 2015.
13. Subsequent to the publication of the final selection list, the
unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection process.
The challenge was made on two grounds. Firstly, such of the
candidates who had obtained CCC certificate after the last date
of advertisement i.e. 30th September 2014 could not have been
selected. Secondly, the candidates who did not possess the
CCC certificate as awarded by DOEACC/ NIELIT but submitted
certificates from private institutions with the self-certification about
their equivalence to CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NELIT
could also not be selected.
14. It will be relevant to refer to the conclusions arrived at by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court in its judgment and order dated 7th
October 2017, which read thus:
“CONCLUSIONS
In the end, the Court records the following conclusions:-
1. A recognised qualification is an essential facet
of Article 16 of the Constitution.
2. No rights can be recognised in a candidate
aspiring to enter public service on the strength of
an unrecognized qualification or one granted by
an institution which is not conferred the authority
to grant the same in accordance with law.
3. The qualification as prescribed by the respondents
does not merit interference at the behest of the
petitioners.
4. The decision of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation dated 23 November 2015 was an act of
ratification and therefore does not merit interference.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 437
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
5. The Commission failed to undertalce any enquiry in
respect of equivalence of qualifications. It undertook
a wholly perfunctory exercise and that too prompted
only by the interim directions of this Court.
6. Even in this exercise no accepted or legally
sustainable norms were applied to adjudge the
equivalence of certificates.
7. The equivalence of qualifications cannot be left
to depend or rest upon a self certification of
candidates.
8. No certificate can possibly be accorded
equivalence unless an enquiry is addressed
towards its course content and syllabus.
9. None of the candidates holding other than CCC
certificates were shown to hold qualifications
recognisable in law. Their inclusion in the select
list has clearly tainted the recruitment exercise.
It has resulted in the induction of candidates
who were not entitled to be selected or offered
appointment.
10. Since their inclusion in the select list is invalid
and would consequently merit the select list
being redrawn, the petitioners are not liable to
be non suited on the basis of the cut off marks
prescribed by the Commission.
Accordingly and in light of the above discussion and the
conclusions recorded above, the select list prepared by
the respondents is rendered unsustainable and must in
consequence be set aside.
The writ petitions preferred by the non selected candidates
are therefore allowed to the extent indicated below. The
Court negatives the challenge to the decision of the Board
of the Corporation dated 23 November 2015 and the
condition of eligibility contained in the two advertisements.
All interim orders operating on the writ petitions shall stand
discharged in order to enable the Commission to proceed in
the matter in light of the directions being issued herein after.
438 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Writ Petition No. 18129 of 2017 shall stand disposed of in
light of the above and the directions issued herein.
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.
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 follow.”
[emphasis supplied]
15. It could thus be seen that the learned Single Judge held that a
recognized qualification is an essential facet of Article 16 of the
Constitution of India. It was held that no rights can be recognized
in a candidate aspiring to enter public service on the strength of an
unrecognized qualification or one granted by an institution which is
not conferred the authority to grant the same in accordance with
law. It was held that the equivalence of qualifications could not
be left to depend or rest upon a self-certification of candidates. It
was further held that no certificate could possibly be accorded with
equivalence unless an enquiry is addressed towards its course
content and syllabus.
16. The learned Single Judge, in unequivocal terms, has held that
inclusion of such of the candidates who did not possess CCC
certificate had clearly tainted the recruitment exercise. It is also
pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge had set aside the
select list only insofar as those candidates who did not hold the
CCC certificate conferred or recognized by DOEACC/NIELIT. The
learned Single Judge directed that the respondent-Corporation shall
in consequence redraw the select list restricting it to candidates who
hold a recognized CCC certificate or a qualification recognized in
law as being equivalent thereto.
17. Subsequent to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the
Electricity Service Commission, on 13th October 2017, directed
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 439
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
the Chief Engineer(s) and Superintending Engineer(s) to send the
attested photocopies of CCC certificates of selected candidates and
to check at their own level, whether the CCC certificate attached
is issued by an institution recognized by DOEACC/NIELIT or its
equivalent or not. Subsequently on 13th May 2018, the Electricity
Service Commission published a list of candidates whose selection
was not found in accordance with the eligibility as per the direction of
the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The said list
also contained the names of the candidates who were possessing
the CCC certificate on the date of their interview. Consequently, their
services also came to be terminated.
18. Various writ appeals came to be filed before the Division Bench
of the High Court. The learned Division Bench, vide judgment and
order dated 9th May 2019, held that the finding of the learned Single
Judge that possession of CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT was
erroneous. It held that for computer literacy, self-certification was
always acceptable and therefore, the CCC certificate having the
self-certification could very well be accepted. The Division Bench
thereby allowed the appeals reversing the judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge and dismissing the writ petitions.
19. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was carried
to this Court in three appeals in the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi
(supra). It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of
this Court:
“53. The candidates who had CCC certificate from
NIELIT/DOEACC and who were included in the merit
list dated 14-7-2015 were not affected by the judgment
of the learned Single Judge dated 7-10-2017 [Prashant
Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No. 41750 of
2015, order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] 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 [Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P. Special
Appeal No. 585 of 2018, order dated 9-5-2019 (All)] has
erroneously held that employer after judgment dated
7-10-2017 [Prashant Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ
A No. 41750 of 2015, order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] did not
440 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
take into consideration the CCC certificate of DOEACC
or NIELIT. The following are the observations made by
the Division Bench in this regard:
“… Heard the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the rival parties. At the threshold, it
would be appropriate to state that the employer
after accepting the judgment given by the
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….”
54. The Division Bench was not correct in making the
above observations since neither the learned Single
Judge vide its judgment dated 7-10-2017 [Prashant Kumar
Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No. 41750 of 2015, order
dated 7-10-2017 (All)] 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.”
[emphasis supplied]
20. It can thus be seen that this Court has, in unequivocal terms,
held that the candidates who had CCC certificate from DOEACC/
NIELIT and who were included in the merit list dated 14th July 2015
were not affected by the judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 7th October 2017, since the list was quashed only insofar as
those candidates included in the merit list who did not have CCC
certificate by DOEACC/NIELIT. This Court has, in unequivocal terms,
held that the learned Single Judge, vide its judgment and order
dated 7th October 2017, had neither restrained the respondent-
Corporation from taking into consideration the CCC certificate
issued by DOEACC/NIELIT nor had it directed that the respondent-
Corporation delete those names from the merit list who had CCC
certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT. From paragraph 55 of the said
judgment, it would be clear that this Court was of the considered
opinion that the CCC certificate as mentioned in the advertisement
dated 14th September 2014 was CCC certificate as granted by
DOEACC/NIELIT.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 441
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
21. A perusal of the said judgment of this Court would reveal that this Court
upheld the finding of the learned Single Judge that the advertisement
dated 14th September 2014 did not envisage self-certification of the
candidate of equivalence to CCC certificate. It further held that the
self-certification by the candidates of their computer qualification was
not sufficient to treat them having passed the required qualification.
It will further be relevant to refer to the following observations of this
Court in the said case:
“71. The above direction indicates that select list insofar
as the candidates, who had certificates from NIELIT/
DOEACC was not quashed, their position in the 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 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 the
learned Single Judge dated 7-10-2017 [Prashant Kumar
Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No. 41750 of 2015, order
dated 7-10-2017 (All)] , the Commission in revising the merit
list accepted the guidelines given under the Government
Order dated 3-5-2016. The guidelines prescribed under
the Government Order dated 3-5-2016 are as follows:
“(a) The qualification of High School or
intermediate 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 in Computer Science then he shall also
be eligible to be recruited as Junior Assistant/
Stenographer.”
442 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
72. Thus, in the revised select list apart from
candidates, who had CCC certificates from DOEACC/
NIELIT, the candidates who were covered under
guidelines dated 3-5-2016 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.”
22. It can be seen that this Court held that the object and purpose of
the direction was to scrutinize the qualifications of those candidates,
who had claimed equivalent certificate. It was only for the purpose
to scrutinize the qualification of those candidates, who were found
possessing equivalent computer qualification so as to retain their
names in the select list. It is further clear that the direction given by
the learned Single Judge was applicable, apart from the candidates
who were having CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT, to the
candidates who were covered under the guidelines dated 3rd May 2016
and were also treated as equivalent to CCC certificate. Ultimately,
this Court upheld the finding of the learned Single Judge and held
that there was no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned
Single Judge.
23. It can be seen from the said judgment that an appeal was made to
this Court that since number of vacancies were still available, the
candidates who were initially in the select list dated 14th July 2015 and
went out of the select list due to redrawing of the select list, they could
be accommodated. However, this Court did not issue any direction
in that regard and permitted such candidates to make representation
which was to be considered by the respondent-Corporation.
24. It is thus clear from the aforesaid that such of the candidates who
were having CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT on the date
of interview and who were part of the select list dated 14th July 2015
could not have been terminated by the respondent-Corporation.
25. It also appears that the respondent-Corporation has been taking
contradictory stands. Before the High Court, it took a stand that not
only such candidates having CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/
NIELIT but also such candidates who had submitted certificate by self-
certification were also entitled to be considered. It is only now that the
respondent-Corporation is taking a stand that such of the candidates
who did not have CCC certificate on 30th September 2014 i.e.,
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 443
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
the last date of application could not be considered as eligible
candidates. The stand is contrary not only to its advertisement
dated 6th September 2014 but also to the office memorandum of
the Board dated 29th January 2011 vide which the 1995 Regulations
were amended.
26. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that services of such of the
candidates who were selected in the select list dated 14th July 2015
and had produced the CCC certificate at the time of the interview could
not have been terminated. We find that the respondent-Corporation
has grossly erred in terminating their services. At the same time, we
are not inclined to accept the contention of those candidates who
did not have CCC certificate even on the date of their interview but
have obtained the same subsequently. When the advertisement
as well as the 1995 Regulations required the CCC certificate to be
produced at the time of interview, if it is permitted to produce the
same subsequent to the date of interview, it would be contrary to
the advertisement and the 1995 Regulations.
27. It was also sought to be urged on behalf of the respondent-
Corporation that such a relief could not have been granted by the
present applications. We clarify that, this Court itself vide order
dated 30th January 2023, while disposing of the writ petition filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, granted a liberty to file
an appropriate application in disposed of CA No. 9026 of 2019 with
connected matters. This Court has subsequently observed that, in
peculiar facts and circumstances, if such application was filed, the
same would be entertained by the Registry of this Court.
28. We therefore find that the present case is a fit case wherein this
Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142
of the Constitution of India. The respondent-Corporation has
misinterpreted the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
terminated the services of the applicants who were otherwise
entitled to be continued as per the judgment. It is further pertinent
to note that the view taken by the learned Single Judge has been
affirmed in unequivocal terms by this Court. We find that if we fail
to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India in these cases, it will be permitting continuation of illegality
committed by the respondent-Corporation.
444 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
29. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The present applications/appeal are allowed;
(ii) Such of the applicants who found place in the select list dated 14th
July 2015 and who possessed/produced the CCC certificate at
the time of their interview are directed to be reinstated forthwith;
(iii) Though they would not be entitled to back wages for the period
during which they were out of employment, they would be
entitled to placement in the seniority list as per their positions as
in the select list dated 14th July 2015 with continuity in service
with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, terminal
benefits etc.; and
(iv) Application(s) of impleadment/intervention are allowed.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above
terms. No order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Termination"Sign in to search