REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9026 OF 2019

MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI    ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.  ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9027 OF 2019

RAJIV KUMAR AND ORS.    ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.  ...RESPONDENT(S)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9028 OF 2019

RAVI PRAKASH AND ORS.    ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.  ...RESPONDENT(S)

1

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

These three appeals have been filed questioning

the common judgment of High Court of Allahabad dated

09.05.2019 delivered by a Division Bench in Special

Appeal No.585 of 2018 – Deepak Sharma and 05 Ors. Vs.

State  of  U.P.  with  several  other  special  appeals.

By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the

High Court has allowed the appeal setting aside the

judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017

delivered  in  batch  of  writ  petitions  led  by  Writ

Petition No. 41750 of 2015 – Prashant Kumar Jaiswal

and 12 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 10 Others and

dismissing all the writ petitions.    

2. For  deciding  these  appeals,  it  shall  be

sufficient to notice the facts and questions of law

as arising in  Civil Appeal No.9026 of 2019 – Mukul

Kumar Tyagi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.,

which is being treated as lead appeal.  The learned

Single Judge by judgment dated 07.10.2017 has decided

2

the  batch  of  writ  petitions  led  by  Writ  Petition

No.41750  of  2015  –  Prashant  Kumar  Jaiswal  and  12

Others  Vs.  State  of  U.P.  and  10  Others,  which

judgment  was  subject  matter  of  challenge  in  the

Special Appeal No. 585 of 2018 and other appeals in

which impugned judgment has been delivered.  It is,

thus, necessary to notice the relevant facts giving

rise to Writ Petition No.47510 of 2015 and sequence

of the events after judgment of the learned Single

Judge dated 07.10.2017.

3. The  subject  matter  of  these  appeals  is

recruitment  to  the  post  of  Technician  Grade-II  in

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited conducted by

Uttar Pradesh Electricity Service Commission, Uttar

Pradesh  Power  Corporation  Limited,  Lucknow.   Under

Uttar  Pradesh  Electricity  Supply  Act,  1948,  the

erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board had

framed  regulations  constituting  Electricity  Service

Commission,  which  was  entrusted  to  conduct

examination for the various posts to be filled up by

competitive  examination.   After  enactment  of  Uttar

3

Pradesh  Electricity  Reforms  Act,  1999,  the  Uttar

Pradesh Electricity State Board ceased to exist and

was  replaced  by  the  Corporation.   The  Corporation

adopted the Regulations framed by Uttar Pradesh State

Electricity Board including Uttar Pradesh Electricity

Board  of  Operational  Employees  Category  Service

Regulations,  1995  (hereinafter  referred  to  as

“Regulations, 1995”), which provided for recruitment

to  the  post  of  Technician  Grade-II.   The

qualifications provided for in Regulations, 1995 were

as follows:-

“Passing  High  School  or  its  equivalent with  Science  and  Mathematics  as  subject from  UP  Secondary  Education  Council  and All  India/State  Trade  Certificate  in Electrical Trade”

4. The Corporation by O.M. dated 24.12.2010 provided

that  apart  from  qualification  mentioned  in

Regulations, 1995 the persons must have three months

certificate course in regard to knowledge of Windows

issued by Computer Institutions recognised by State

Government.  On 29.01.2011, the Uttar Pradesh Power

Corporation Ltd. issued an office memo by which with

4

regard  to  computer  qualification  as  prescribed

earlier by Corporation, following was substituted:-

“Certificate  of  80  Hours  Course  on Computer Concept (CCC) issued by DOEACC”

5. The  Managing  Director  of  the  Corporation  by

Office Memo dated 05.07.2013 with regard to direct

recruitment  at  the  post  of  Technician  Grade-II  in

place of the computer qualification of “Certificate

of 80 Hours Course on Computer Concept (CCC) issued

by  DOEACC”  substituted  “Course  on  Computer  Concept

(CCC)  Certificate  or  its  equivalent  computer

qualification  certificate”  and  sought  for  the

approval of Board of Directors of the Corporation.   

6. After  Office  Memo  dated  29.01.2011 issued  by

Corporation,  the  Electricity  Service  Commission

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “Commission”)  had

advertised 2974 posts for Technician Grade-II in the

year  2011  where  Course  on  Computer  Concept

Certificate  by  DOEACC  was  one  of  the  mandatory

qualifications. The 2011 selection was completed with

requirement of CCC certificate by DOEACC.   

5

7. A  fresh  advertisement  No.4/V.SE.Aa/2014  dated

06.09.2014  was  issued  by  Electricity  Service

Commission inviting applications for 2211 vacancies.

Paragraph  2  of  the  advertisement  provides  for

compulsory qualifications to the following effect:-

“2. Compulsory qualifications:

(1) High  School  or  its  equivalent exam.  pass  from  Board  of  Higher Secondary  Education,  U.P.  with Science  &  Math  subjects  and  All India/State Vocational Certificate in Electrician Trade &

(2) Course on Computer Concept (CCC) Certificate  or  its  equivalent computer  qualification certificate.

Note:   Certificate  of  Electrician Trade only would be admissible. Certificate  received  through Distant  Education  and certificate  obtained  on  the basis of experience would not be admissible.”  

8. Written examination was conducted on 08.11.2014

and candidates were called for interview in December,

2014/January,  2015.   On  24.04.2015,  a  second

advertisement  was  issued  by  Commission  seeking  to

6

fill  up  884  posts  of  Technician  Grade  II.   On

14.07.2015, the Commission published a select list of

2211  candidates,  in  response  to  the  first

advertisement. On 31.07.2015, Writ Petition No.41750

of 2015 – Prashant Kumar Jaiswal and 12 Others Vs.

State of U.P. and 10 Others was filed in which on

31.07.2015,  learned  Single  Judge  passed  following

order:-

“Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate  assisted  by  Sri  Sunil  Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the  petitioners  as  well  as  learned Standing  Counsel  appearing  for  the respondent  No.1  and  Shri  Ayank  Mishra, learned  counsel  appearing  for  the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4.

Issue notice to the respondents no. 5 to 11 through the Secretary, Electricity Service Commission.  

Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents pray  for  and  is  granted  time  till  6th

August,  2015  to  file  counter  affidavit particularly  with  reference  to  the assertions made in paragraphs 24 to 28 of the writ petition.

On the request of the learned counsel for the respondents, put up as a fresh case  on  6th August,  2015  before  the appropriate Court.  

Matter need not be treated as tied up or part heard.  Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no final decision

7

will be taken in pursuance to the impugned select list.  

Order Date:- 31.7.2015”

9. The  petitioners  of  Writ  Petition  No.  41750  of

2015 were not included in the select list published

on 14.07.2015 by the Commission.  Writ petitioners

sought quashing of the select list dated 14.07.2015

and further sought revision of the select list after

excluding therefrom the candidates, who have obtained

computer eligibility certificate on date subsequent

to  30.09.2014  and  other  candidates,  who  do  not

possess  computer  concept  certificate  as  awarded  by

DOEACC  society  [renamed  as  National  Institute  of

Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT)].  In

the  writ  petition,  the  petitioners  had  arrayed

various  selected  candidates  in  representative

capacity.  The case of the petitioners was that CCC

Certificate is granted only by DOEACC/NIELIT and none

of the certificates issued by private or unrecognised

institutions can be treated as equivalent thereto and

thus,  candidates,  who  have  filed  certificates  from

8

private and unrecognised institutions cannot be held

to  possess  qualification  as  prescribed  by  the

advertisement.   

10. On 17.02.2016, an order was passed by the learned

Single Judge that all appointments to be made by the

respondent would abide by the final decision of the

writ petition.  Learned Single Judge by its order

dated  12.08.2016  noticing  relevant  aspects  of  the

case  called  upon  the  Commission  to  file  further

affidavit.   Commission  filed  an  affidavit  and

referred  to  decision  dated  27.01.2015  where

respondents had treated certificate granted upon the

culmination of a course spread over three months or

80 Hours as equivalent to CCC Certificate.  Learned

Single Judge after hearing the writ petitioners, the

Electricity  Commission  and  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Power

Corporation  allowed  the  writ  petitions.   Learned

Single  Judge  quashed  the  select  list  drawn  up

pursuant to the advertisements in question insofar as

it  includes  candidates  who  do  not  hold  a  CCC

certificate  conferred  or  recognised  by  NIELIT.

9

Learned  Single  Judge  directed  the  respondents  to

redraw  the  select  list  restricting  it  to  the

candidates, who hold a recognised CCC certificate or

a qualification recognised in law as being equivalent

thereto.  The Commission was directed to reframe the

merit list and publish the results thereof afresh.

The  judgment  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  dated

07.10.2017 was accepted by the Commission. The merit

list was revised in accordance with the judgment of

the High Court dated 07.10.2017.  The revised merit

list  was  published  on  21.06.2018.   Several

candidates, who did not possess CCC Certificate or

equivalent were deleted from the select list.  One of

the candidates, whose name was deleted, filed a Writ

Petition No. 13216 of 2018 -Rohit Vs. State of U.P.

and 2 others, challenging the order dated 13.05.2018,

by which his name was deleted.  The writ petition was

dismissed  by  a  learned  Single  Judge  on  30.05.2018

upholding  the  order  of  deletion  of  his  name.   A

Special Appeal No. 582 of 2018 was filed by Rohit,

the writ petitioner, which too was dismissed by the

Division Bench on 22.06.2018 reaffirming the view of

10

learned Single Judge that writ petitioner (Rohit) did

not possess the certificate of Computer Course or its

equivalent course.               The certificate

issued  in  October,  2015  by  NIELIT  having  obtained

after  the  last  date  of  the  application  (i.e.

30.09.2014)  was  held  not  to  make  the  candidate

eligible.   Consequent  to  the  publication  of  the

revised list on 21.06.2018 about 903 candidates went

out of the select list.  Other candidates, who had

CCC certificate or equivalent thereto were included

in the select list.  The appellants in Civil Appeal

No. 9026 of 2019 – Mukul Kumar Tyagi and Civil Appeal

No. 9027 of 2019 – Rajiv Kumar and others are the

appellants, who came in the select list after the

revision  of  the  select  list  and  were  issued

appointment  orders  thereafter  and  have  joined  the

post and are working as on date.   

11. The Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 585 of

2018 and other connected appeals issued a direction

to the respondent on 24.08.2018 to make equivalence

of  the  qualification  of  ITI/  any  Vocational

11

qualification possessed by the appellants and persons

similarly  situated  to  the  appellants.   Questioning

the  judgment  and  direction  of  the  Division  Bench

dated  24.08.2018,    Special  Leave  to  Appeal  (C)

No.24585 of 2018 was filed in this Court, which came

to  be  disposed  of  on  01.10.2018.   The  direction

issued by the Division Bench to the Commission was

made  inoperative  in  the  interregnum.   This  Court

requested the High Court to dispose of the Special

Appeals as expeditiously as possible.  

12. The special appeals came to be finally decided by

the Division Bench vide its impugned judgment dated

09.05.2019.  The special appeals have been allowed,

judgment of learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017 has

been  set  aside  and  all  the  writ  petitions  were

dismissed.  

13. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench

dated 09.05.2019, these appeals have been filed.  

12

14. The appellants in Civil Appeal No.9026 of 2019,

Mukul  Kumar  Tyagi  Vs.  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and

Others,  and  Civil  Appeal  No.  9027  of  2019,  Rajiv

Kumar  and  Others  Vs.  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and

Others are candidates whose names were included in

the revised select list dated 21.06.2018 drawn by the

Commission  consequent  to  the  judgment  of  learned

Single Judge dated 07.10.2017. The appellants of both

the  above  appeals  were  also  appointed  on  post  of

Technician Grade-II after they being included in the

revised select list dated 21.06.2018.

15. In Civil Appeal No.9026 of 2019, first respondent

is  State  of  U.P.,  2nd respondent  is  Uttar  Pradesh

Power  Corporation  Ltd.,  3rd respondent  is  Managing

Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and 4th

respondent is Electricity Service Commission, Uttar

Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Respondent Nos.5 to 11

were respondent Nos. 5 to 11 in Special Appeal No.585

of  2018.  Respondent  Nos.  12  to  23  are  proforma

respondents, who were respondents in Special Appeal

No.585  of  2018  along  with  Mukul  Kumar  Tyagi,

13

appellant.  The  respondent  Nos.  24  to  29  were  the

appellants in Special Appeal No.585 of 2018.  

16. Civil Appeal No. 9028 of 2019, Ravi Prakash and

Others  Vs.  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  Others,  is

appeal by those candidates who though appeared in the

written examination and in the interview but were not

included either in the original select list or in the

revised  select  list.  All  the  appellants  are

candidates  who  have  CCC  certificate  from  DOEACC

despite  that  they  could  not  find  place  in  the

original merit list or the revised merit list.  

17. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior

counsel, Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel

and  Ms.  Mahalakshmi  Pavani,  learned  senior  counsel

for  the  appellants.  Shri  Dushyant  Dave,  learned

senior  counsel,  Shri  Niraj  Kishan  Kaul,  learned

senior  counsel  and  Shri  Debashish  Bharuka  have

appeared  for  private  respondents.  Shri  Parag

Tripathi,  learned  senior  counsel  has  appeared  for

UPPCL and Electricity Service Commission.  

14

18. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for

the  appellant  submits  that  the  select  list  dated

14.07.2015  drawn  by  the  Commission  contained  the

names  of  the  candidates  who  did  not  fulfil  the

eligibility  as  per  the  advertisement  dated

14.09.2014. Several candidates who were included in

the  select  list  dated  14.07.2015  had  no  CCC

certificate from DOEACC or NIELIT. The certificates

which were relied by the large number of candidates

were  certificates  obtained  from  private  institutes

which were unrecognised and who were not competent to

issue any certificate nor such certificate could have

been equivalent to CCC. Learned Single Judge after

having  found  that  the  Commission  included  in  the

select  list  the  candidates  whose  certificates  were

not equivalent to CCC and no exercise having been

conducted by the Commission to verify the equivalence

of  certificates  as  claimed  by  large  number  of

candidates directed the Commission by judgment dated

07.10.2017 to redraw the select list after verifying

15

the equivalence of certificates of those candidates

who had not filed CCC certificate.  

19. Shri Patwalia submits that self-certification by

candidates  that  their  computer  qualifications  are

equivalent  to  CCC  was  wholly  unauthorised  and

illegal.  The  Commission  in  the  selection  process

relied  on  self-certification  by  the  candidates  for

including  them  in  the  select  list  which  was

unjustified  and  violative  of  Article  16  of  the

Constitution of India.  

20. Shri Patwalia submits that qualifications which

are prescribed by the employer for recruitment on the

post  of  Technician  Grade-II  had  to  be  strictly

adhered to in the selection process. Shri Patwalia

submits  that  CCC  certificate  was  issued  by  DOEACC

which subsequently became NIELIT which is the only

recognised  authority  to  issue  CCC  certificate.  No

other authority or body has been found to issue CCC

Certificate. For declaring a computer certificate as

equivalent to CCC, the recruiting authority/employer

has  to  compare  the  course  contents  of  the  CCC

16

Certificate  and  the  course  contents  of  the

certificate which is claimed to be equivalent to CCC.

21. Shri Patwalia submits that in the Selection in

question, there were no guidelines or criteria for

declaring equivalence of the computer certificate to

the CCC. In the entire selection process, no exercise

was  undertaken  by  the  Commission  to  verify  the

certificates  of  the  candidates  who  claimed

certificate  from  private  organizations,  registered

societies,  which  were  not  authorised  to  issue  any

computer qualification certificate.

22. It  is  submitted  that  all  the  appellants  are

candidates,  who  have  passed  CCC  certificate  from

DOEACC and were entitled to be included 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

17

and in compliance of the judgment, the revised merit

list was drawn.  

23. It is submitted that in revising the select list,

the Order dated 03.05.2016 issued by the State of

U.P.  which  provided  a  mode  to  be  adopted  for

equivalence of computer qualification was adhered to

and  as  per  the  Government  Order  dated  03.05.2016

equivalence of CCC certificate was declared and those

candidates  who  fulfil  the  equivalence  as  per

Government  Order  dated  03.05.2016  were  included  in

the select list.  

24. Shri Patwalia submits that the Division Bench has

erroneously  accepted  the  self-certification  by  the

candidates as equivalent to CCC Certificate, which is

unsustainable.  

25. Shri  Patwalia  further  submits  that  the  ITI

certificate and other vocational certificates which

Division  Bench  held  to  be  equivalent  to  CCC

certificate  is  not  sustainable.  He  submits  that

18

certificate of ITI and other vocational certificates

do  not  conform  to  the  course  contents  of  CCC

certificate and can never be held to be equivalent to

CCC certificate. Shri Patwalia further submits that

after  the  judgment  of  learned  Single  Judge  dated

07.10.2017, the revised Select list was drawn which

revised select list came to be challenged in the High

Court separately by filing a writ petition, which was

dismissed upholding the revision of select list. A

special appeal filed against the judgment of learned

Single Judge being Special Appeal No.582 of 2018 was

also  dismissed  upholding  the  deletion  of  those

candidates  who  did  not  have  computer  certificates

equivalent to CCC.  

26. It is submitted that a Division Bench of the High

Court  having  upheld  the  exercise  carried  out  by

Commission  consequent  to  the  judgment  dated

07.10.2017,  the  Division  Bench  in  the  impugned

judgment could not have taken a contrary view. It is

submitted that Division Bench judgment of the High

Court in Special Appeal No.585 of 2018 has not even

been referred to in the impugned judgment.  

19

27. Shri  Patwalia  submits  that  the  Division  Bench

committed error in setting aside the judgment of the

learned single Judge and consequence of which is to

restore the Select list containing the names of the

candidates who do not fulfil the qualification for

the post. It is submitted that Division Bench could

not  have  diluted  the  qualifications  which  was

prescribed in the advertisement more so when there

was  no  challenge  to  the  qualification  by  anyone.

Shri Patwalia submitted that CCC certificate is given

only by DOEACC/NIELIT and the CCC certificate which

was required in the advertisement was the certificate

issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.  

28. Smt.  Anjana  Prakash,  learned  senior  counsel

appearing in Civil Appeal No. 9027 of 2019 adopted

the submissions of Shri Patwalia and submits that all

the appellants were included in the revised select

list who have been appointed and are working.

29. Smt.  Mahalakshmi  Pavani,  appearing  in  Civil

Appeal No. 9028 of 2019, Ravi Prakash and Others Vs.

20

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others submits that all

the appellants in the appeal have CCC certificates

from DOEACC but they could not be included in the

original select list or revised select list. It is

submitted that there are 161 vacancies on the post of

Technician  Grade-II  caused  due  to  resignation  and

non-joining, on which vacancies the appellants, who

have  CCC  certificates  and  participated  in  written

test and interview can be appointed. She prayed that

appropriate  direction  be  issued  to  appoint  the

appellants on the above vacant posts.

30. Shri  Dushyant  Dave,  learned  senior  counsel

appearing  for  the  respondents  refuting  the

submissions  of  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants

supports  the  judgment  of  the  Division  Bench.  Shri

Dave submits that in the writ petition filed before

the High Court selected candidates having not been

made party, the learned Single Judge could not have

quashed the select list. He submits that the judgment

of learned Single Judge has been passed in violation

of principle of natural justice since it was passed

21

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

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.

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

claimed  by  the  respondents were  certificates  which

22

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, 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.  

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

23

arbitrariness on the part of Commission. He further

submits  that  Regulations,  1995  which  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  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 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

24

list  had  obtained  different  ITI  and  vocational

certificates,  which  fulfil  the  necessary  knowledge

and requirement of computer qualification.  

35. It is submitted that CCC certificate is a basic

computer  course  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 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  Corporation  and  the  Commission  has

referred to writ petition of Rohit Kumar which was

filed  challenging  the  action  of  the  Commission

25

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.

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  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, Government of Uttar Pradesh extended the

scope of Government Order dated 03.05.2016 to all the

26

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. 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.  

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: -

27

(i) What is “Course on Computer Concept” (CCC)

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  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  “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? (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?

28

(vi) Whether the learned Single Judge ought not

to have quashed the select list when the

selected candidates 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 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 Computer Courses (DOEACC) Society was

formed  in  the  year  1994  and  registered  under  the

Society Registration Act, 1860.  The management and

administration  of  the  Society  is  overseen  by

Governing  Council,  under  the  chairmanship  of  the

Minister  of  State,  Communications  &  Information

29

Technology,  Government  of  India.  Members  of  the

Council  consist  of  eminent  academia  from  IITs,

Universities,  etc.  and  professionals  from  the

industry.  Under the 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  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  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

30

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  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.”

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,  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

31

essential  qualifications  for  different  posts

throughout the country.  Neither there is any case on

the  record  nor  any  material  to  indicate  that  CCC

certificate is also being granted by any other body

or authority.  There is no certificate brought on

record by any of the applicants or the Corporation or

Commission indicating that CCC certificate is granted

by any other body or authority except DOEACC/NIELIT.

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  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 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

32

being granted by any other body or authority.  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 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 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

33

CCC certificate by DOEACC as provided in O.M. dated

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 05.07.2013, where he

mentions that CCC certificate, it cannot be held that

CCC  certificate  by  DOEACC  or  NIELIT  was  not

contemplated.  When no other body or authority is

issuing CCC certificate, it has to be held that CCC

certificate  mentioned  in  the  O.M.  of  Managing

Director  and  the  advertisement  was  the  CCC

certificate  issued  by  DOEACC/NIELIT.   The  Uttar

Pradesh  Power  Corporation  had  added  the  computer

qualification as the essential requirement to serve a

particular  purpose  and  to  select  the  candidates

having such qualification so that they could perform

their duties of the job well.  It cannot be accepted

that  Managing  Director  by  deleting  the  CCC

certificate from DOEACC wanted to do away with CCC

34

certificate  by  DOEACC  or  wanted  to  introduce  an

uncertainty or a window for all kind of certificates

to be recognised.  It is, however, to be noted that

when  the  qualification  of  equivalent  computer

certificate was provided and added, any certificate,

which  can  be  held  to  be  equivalent  to  CCC

certificate,  shall  also  confer  eligibility  to  a

candidate.  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 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.  

45. The candidates who had submitted application in

response to advertisement dated 14.09.2014 had also

35

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  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  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 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.  The

36

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.  

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.”

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 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

37

candidates  who  do  not  possess  CCC  certificate  by

DOEACC/NIELIT.

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 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  in the 136(08)th meeting of  Board of Directors held on  17.01.2018 for determination  of the equivalence of the ‘CCC’ certificates issued  by NIELIT/D.O.E.A.C.C.

Sir,  

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 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

38

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 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/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  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 compliance as per above.

Your’s faithfully

(Rakesh Bhatt) Deputy Secretary

(Regulation and Ka.Vi.Ni.)”

49. The  candidates  who  had  CCC  certificate  from

NIELIT/DOEACC and who were included in the merit list

39

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  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. 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....”

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.  

40

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

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.  

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

41

qualification  and  other  certificates.  Clause  (7)

refers  to  self-attested  and  signed  photocopies  of

qualification  certificates/  marksheets/  caste

certificates etc. For ready reference, clause (7) of

the advertisement is as 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  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 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.  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:

42

(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.”

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  Officer  of  the

certificates  may  self-attest  the  certificates  and

submit them, which is subject to subsequent scrutiny

and  verification.  When  application  is  submitted

online, self-attestation by candidate is sufficient

to  consider  the  candidature  of  the  candidate  for

purposes  of  calling  him  to  appear  in  the  written

test. Last part of clause (7) further contemplates

that  “all  the  certificates  concerning  with

qualification  of  candidates  declared  successful  in

written test, could be scrutinised.” The Clause (7)

43

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.  

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

the objective of recruiting the best candidates for

the job. It is the recruiting agency who is under

obligation  to  scrutinise  the  qualifications  of  a

candidate as to whether a candidate is eligible and

entitled  to  participate  in  the  selection.  More  so

when  the  advertisement  clearly  contemplates  that

certificate  concerning  the  qualification  shall  be

scrutinised, it was the duty and obligation of the

44

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.  

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  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 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-

45

certification  for  computer  literacy equivalent to CCC....”

57. We are unable to concur with the above view taken

by  the  Division  Bench.  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 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  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  computer  qualification  was  not  sufficient  to

treat them having passed the required qualification.  

46

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  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  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  candidates  for

interview,  the  candidates  were  required  to  bring

several  documents  and  certificates.   One  of  the

47

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.”

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 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  recruitment

process.  The employer, who had issued advertisement

and  required  fulfilling  of  qualification  as

48

prescribed ought to be keenly interested in selecting

candidates,  who  fulfil  the  qualification  and  serve

the post as per requirement of employer.  Preparation

of the select list without scrutiny of the computer

qualification of the candidates, who do not possess

CCC  certificates  is  abdication  of  duty  and

obligation, both by Corporation and the Commission.

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.           

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:-

“Equivalent.  Equal in worth or value.

49

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,  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 mandatory qualification for a

post, there should be yardsticks declaring equivalent

or equivalence, which has to be declared by any body

entrusted with such jurisdiction and who is competent

to  declare  equivalence  of  a  qualification.   In

absence  of  any  such  declaration,  it  is  for  the

employer  to  provide  for  the  methodology  for

determining  the  equivalent  qualification.   The  CCC

certificate is issued by DOEACC/NIELIT, which is on a

particular syllabus.  Syllabus of the CCC certificate

is placed 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

50

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  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 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 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 equivalent.”

63. This  Court  in  Chairman  and  Managing  Director,

Food  Corporation  of  India  and  Others  Vs.  Jagdish

51

Balaram  Bahira  and  Others,  (2017)  8  SCC  670,  in

paragraph 570 laid down following:-

“56. …………………Where the State embarks upon public 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 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 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…………………”  

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

52

but permitting unqualified persons to be included in

the select list.  We, thus, conclude that neither

there  was  any  criteria  or  guidelines  framed  by

employer or the recruitment agency to determine the

equivalence  nor  any  exercise  was  conducted  by  the

Commission  during  the  process  of  recruitment  and

without  there  being  scrutiny  of  the  equivalent

qualification  claimed  by  several  candidates,  their

names  were  included  on  the  basis  of  self-

certification.  The Division Bench of the High Court

in  its  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  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 equivalent to CCC.”  

53

 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 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 exclude those, who did not have the

CCC  certificates.   The  direction  of  the  learned

Single  Judge  as  extracted  above  is  in  two  parts.

Learned 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

54

redraw the select list restricting it to candidates

who  hold  a  recognised  CCC  certificate  or  a

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 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  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

55

prescribed  under  the  Government  Order  dated

03.05.2016 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.”

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

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  scrutiny  of  equivalent  certificate.   The

56

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 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 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.  

57

68. Thus, the deletion of names of certain candidates

from  the  select  list  was  upheld  by  an  earlier

Division Bench of the High Court.  The Division Bench

of the High Court in the impugned judgment without

adverting to cases of those whose deletion of names

were upheld by the earlier Division Bench of the High

Court  had  restored  the  select  list,  which  was  in

existence on 14.07.2015. For the above reasons, the

judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained.

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 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,

58

which  was  filed  challenging  the  select  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 judgment in following

words: -

“……………The petitions have arrayed various selected  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.”

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: -

“13. The  law  on  the  subject  has  been crystallised in several decisions of this Court.  In  Chandra  Prakash  Tiwari v.

59

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, 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, (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  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 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)

60

“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 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 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, (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 certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process  and  after  participating  in  the interview  sought  to  challenge  the

61

selection  process  as  being  without jurisdiction.  This  was  held  to  be impermissible.

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  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  Court  held that: (SCC p. 318, para 18)

“18.  It  is  settled  law  that  a person  who  consciously  takes  part 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 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  one  more

62

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 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.”

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 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 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

63

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. 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 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

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.

64

74. There is one more aspect which needs to be noted.

The Commission had obtained an undertaking from the

candidates who had 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 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, U.P. Power Corporation Limited Lucknow.

Sub:-  Regarding  equivalency  of ‘CCC’ Certificate of Computer.

Sir,

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 in it.  

65

In  case  Computer  Certificate submitted by me is not found 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 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  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  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

66

argument  of  non-impleadment  of  all  the  selected

candidates in the writ petition but Division Bench

has not based its 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  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 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.

67

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 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

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

Corporation.  

68

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 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 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, which is the authority,

to take a decision in accordance with law.   

69

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.    

......................J.                              ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

......................J.                              ( NAVIN SINHA )

New Delhi,  December 16, 2019.          

70