Supreme Court Reinstates Candidates Who Had CCC Certificate In 2014 As Technical Grade-II (Electrical) Employees In UP Power Corporation

The Supreme Court recently found that Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited "grossly erred" in terminating the services of those Applicants who were duly selected and possessed the certificate for computer literacy at the time of interview as required in the advertisement dated 6th September 2014 issued for filling the vacancy of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited

As for those candidates who did not possess the certificate even on the date of the interview, the same cannot be accommodated. 

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan was hearing the present appeal which prayed for a direction for the re-appointment of the applicants on the post of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (Respondent). It found that the Respondent had misinterpreted the judgment of the single judge of the Allahabad High Court, which directed the Respondent to redraw the Select List restricting it to those candidates who had brought the certificate at the time of the interview.

Exercising extraordinary powers of complete justice under Article 142, the Court directed that those candidates who possessed/produced the CCC certificate at the time of interview and were a part of the original select list be reinstated. The Court added that they should be entitled to placement in the seniority list as per their position in accordance with the original Select List. 

Brief facts 

As per the brief facts, the Respondents adopted the U.P. State Power Parishad Operative Employees Cadre Service Regulations, 1995 promulgated by the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board under the Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, to fill post posts of Technician Grade-II. 

With the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, the U.P. State Electricity Board ceased to exist and was replaced by the Respondent. The 1999 Regulations were amended on January 29, 2011, whereby it became necessary for Technician Grade II to hold a Certificate of 80 hours Course on Computer Concepts (CCC Certificate) issued by the Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC) (subsequently renamed as National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology). The Amended Regulation required that the same certificate shall be produced at the time of interview. 

Subsequently, this requirement was modified in November 2011 and the Respondent stated that an equivalent computer eligibility qualification to the CCC Certificate issued by the DOEACC would also be accepted. 

The Applicants in the present appeals were appointed pursuant to an advertisement dated September 6, 2014, which invited applications for appointments against 2,211 posts of Technician Grade II. It was stated that the CCC Certificate or its equivalent was one of the mandatory educational qualifications.

The Applicants were selected as per Select List dated July 14, 2015 and were given appointment letters. On July 25, 2015, the unsuccessful candidates approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the Select list dated July 14, 2015 and revision of the Select List by excluding those who did not have the CCC Certificate or those who obtained the same subsequent to September 30, 2014, that is, after the last date of advertisement. 

What did the Allahabad High Court say?

The single judge of the High Court an order dated October 7, 2017, quashed the Select List to the extent it included those candidates who did not have the certificate and directed the Respondent to redraw the List by restricting it to those candidates who had the requisite certificate. It also held against the self-certification of candidates. 

On May 13, 2018, the Respondent, Electricity Service Commission published the list of candidates whose selection was not found to be in accordance with the eligibility as per the High Court. This however included those candidates as well who possessed the certificate on the date of the interview on grounds that they did not possess the certificate as on the last date of filling the application. The appointment was set aside via a termination letter dated May 13, 2018.

Against this, the Applicants preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. On May 9, 2019, the division bench allowed the special appeal, and set aside the October 7 order and directed that the position relating to the entire process of selection including the appointments of selected incumbents as that was prior to acceptance of writ petitions be restored. It held that for computer literary, self-certification as was always acceptable and therefore, the CCC certificate having the self-certification could be accepted.

Litigation before the Supreme Court 

Against the May 9 order of the division bench, the three appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. On December 16, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals and set aside the order of the division bench.

The Court clarified that the single judge's order had not quashed the entire Select List as those candidates who have the requisite certificate, their position in the Select List was not disturbed. It also clarified that the CCC Certificate as mentioned in the advertisement was the CCC certificate granted by the DOEACC/NIELIT.

Thereafter, in another writ petition, the applicants sought a direction from the Supreme Court that they should be reinstated in their services as their termination is in the teeth of the December 16, 2019 judgment. As per their plea, the entire selection process should not have been set aside as they possessed the certificate at the time of the interview. The Respondent had set aside the whole process because the candidates had not obtained the Certificate on the last date of submission, that is September 30, 2014. They had only obtained the certificate prior to the interview, that is, on July 4, 2015. 

The writ petition was dismissed on January 30, 2023, but the Court granted liberty to the Applicants to be an appropriate application in the 2019 matter. That's how the present appeals were before the Court.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The Supreme Court held: "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."

The Court found that the Respondent had taken contradictory stands on CCC Certificate. It observed: "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., 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."

Case Details: MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI v. The STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9026 OF 2019

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 876

Appearances: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari and Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee (for Applicants) & Senior Advocate S.K. Saxena (for Respondent)

Click Here To Read Order