Spla (A) 585 2018

1
Reserved on 16.8.2018
Delivered on 24.8.2018
Court No. 21

Case : SPECIAL APPEAL No. 585 of 2018
Appellant : Deepak Sharma And 5 Ors
Respondent : State Of U.P. And 23 Ors
Counsel for Appellant : Alok Singh, H.N. Singh
Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhishek Srivastava,
Ashok Khare, G.K. Singh, Ramendra Pratap Singh

with
Appellant : Satish Kumar And 17 Ors
Counsel for Appellant : Pradeep Singh, Ashok Mehta
Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Ramendra Pratap Singh

with
Appellant : Narendra Kumar And 33 Ors
Counsel for Appellant : Anil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, G.K. Singh, Pankaj
Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Srivastava

with
Appellant : Ashutosh Singh And 69 Others
Respondent : State Of U.P. And 23 Others
Counsel for Appellant : Prabhash Pandey, Anil Kumar Pandey, Kanchan
Singh, Shri Radha Kant Ojha
Sunil Kumar Srivastava

with
Appellant : Mahendra Kumar And 47 Ors
Counsel for Appellant : Prabhash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhinav Ojha,
Abhishek Srivastava, Siddharth Khare

with
Appellant : Anshu Kumar And 26 Ors
Counsel for Appellant : Chandan Sharma, Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhinav Ojha,
Abhishek Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Srivastava

with
2
Appellant : Komal Maurya And 11 Ors
Counsel for Appellant : Shree Prakash Giri, Pramil Kumar
Ramendra Pratap Singh, Sunil Kumar Srivastava

with
Appellant : Nepal Singh And 18 Others
Counsel for Appellant : Hanuman Prasad Dube
Ramendra Pratap Singh, Sunil Kumar Srivastava

with
Appellant : Ravi Shankar And 11 Others
Counsel for Appellant : Shailendra Nath Tiwari

with
Appellant : Rishikesh Maurya And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant : Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C.

with
Appellant : Dimple Supriya Yaduvanshi And 18 Others
Respondent : State Of Up And 15 Others
Counsel for Appellant : Anoop Trivedi, Om Prakash Yadav

with
Appellant : Amit Kumar Gupta And 128 Ors.
Respondent : State Of U.P. And 23 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant : Manish Yadav
Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Abhishek Srivastava, Gauri Shankar
Yadav, Ramendra Pratap Singh, Sunil Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Govind Mathur, J.)
These appeals are before us to examine correctness of the judgment
dated 07.10.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in the batch of writ
3
petitions led by WritA No. 41750 of 2015 (Prashant Kumar Jaiswal
and 12 others Versus State of U.P. and 10 others).
Under the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench directed the

respondents to redraw the select list restricting it to candidates who
hold a recognized “Course on Computer Concepts' certificate
(hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) or a qualification recognized in law
as being equivalent thereto. A direction is also given to Electricity
Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as
“Commission”) to reframe the merit list and publish the result thereof
afresh.
The instant appeals have been preferred by the persons who were
employed by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited as
Technician GradeII by taking into consideration the computer
qualification certificates represented as equivalent to “CCC” on basis
of selfcertification.
The appellantpetitioners as a consequence to the directions given by
learned Single Bench have been terminated from service.
Suffice to mention that in the petitions for writ, most of the

appellants were not party to the writ proceedings and the judgment
impugned was passed by learned Single Bench in their absence.
The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of these
appeals is that the Board of Management of Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) under an
office order dated 29.01.2011 prescribed that all incumbents seeking
selection to the posts of Technician GradeII are required to have
“CCC certificate” issued by DOEACC Society. Under an office order
dated 05.07.2013, the Managing Director of the Corporation
provided that aspirants to be considered for appointment on the post
referred above may hold either a “CCC certificate” or a Computer
Eligibility Qualification equivalent thereto.
A process of selection then was initiated in pursuance of the

4
Advertisement dated 06.09.2014 to satisfy 2211 posts of Technician
GradeII. A written examination was conducted on 08.11.2014
followed by interviews, which were conducted in the month of
December, 2014.
The Commission under an Advertisement dated 24.04.2015 again

initiated a process of selection against 884 posts of Technician Grade
II. However, prior to holding any written test in pursuance of this
Advertisement, a select list as a consequence to earlier process of
selection was notified on 14.07.2015. After declaration of select list,
the selection process initiated in pursuance of the Advertisement
dated 24.04.2015 also came to be completed and result thereof too
was declared. The process of selection and the select list declared as
a consequence thereto was challenged by way of filing a petition for
writ on the count that the respondentemployer instead of assessing
the computer qualification equivalent to “CCC certificates” issued by
DOEACC permitted the aspirants to submit certificates even from
private institutions with the selfcertification about their equivalence
to “CCC certificates” issued by DOEACC. Learned Single Bench after
considering the entire issue from different aspects concluded as
under:
“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 unrecognised
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.
5. The Commission failed to undertake 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.
5
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.”
In light of the conclusions recorded above, learned Single Bench
declared that the select list prepared by the respondentCommission
is rendered unsustainable and, as such, deserves to be set aside. The
writ petitions, thus, came to be disposed of with a direction as
under:
“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.
…..
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.”
6
Being aggrieved by the judgment referred above, these appeals have
been preferred by the persons who have already been employed as
Technician GradeII as a consequence to process of selection in
question. The appellants at the time of applying for recruitment as
Technician GradeII were not possessing “CCC certificates” issued by
the DOEACC or a qualification equivalent thereto except the
qualification selfcertified about such equivalence.
The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are as follows:
1. The process of selection for appointment as Technician
GradeII was initiated in pursuance of an Advertisement dated
06.09.2014 and during the process of selection, the appellants
qualified the written test, interviews and were placed in the list
of selected incumbents. The appellants joined service in the
month of August, 2015 being offered by the Uttar Pradesh
Electricity Board. The appointments given to the appellants
have been set aside without providing any opportunity of
hearing. A valuable civil right accrued to the appellants as a
consequence to joining of service has been desettled by the
learned Single Bench in their absence which is in flagrant
violation of the principles of natural justice and also of fair
adjudication.
2. The petitions for writ accepted by learned Single Bench
under the judgment impugned were suffering with a serious
lacuna of nonjoinder of necessary parties, but learned Single
Bench without noticing that examined the merits of the case
and set aside the select list as a consequence of which the
appointments given to the appellants have been terminated.
3. The petitions for writ were filed by the persons who

participated in process of selection knowing it well that the
employer shall be accepting the certificates equivalent to “CCC
certificate” on basis of selfcertification. No challenge to the
7
same was given before participation in process. It is only on
being declared unsuccessful in the selection, the appellant
petitioners preferred the petitions for writ, as such, they should
have been estopped from agitating the cause in question.
4. Learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the

ingredients of qualification of “CCC” are only fundamental
computer knowledge and every participant is aware of those
being a person having ITI certificate wherein such computer
knowledge is an integral part of curriculum.
5. The appellants submitted genuine certificates obtained

from private institutions relating to the qualification either
equivalent or higher to the qualification of “CCC”. Learned
Single Bench would have ordered for verification of the
qualificational certificates submitted by the petitioners instead
of declaring such certificates admissible as equivalent to “CCC”.
6. The process of recruitment and other service conditions
relating to the post of Technician GradeII are governed by
“U.P. Electricity Board Operational Employees Category Service
Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations,
1995”)” and Regulation 9 provides for educational and
technical qualification as given in Schedule IA. As per the
qualification prescribed, an incumbent to be considered for
appointment as a Technician GradeII is required to have High
School examination certificate from the Board of High School
and Intermediate Examination with Science and Mathematics
with the qualification of All India Electrician Trade or State
Vyavsayik Pramanpatra with experience of two years. The
Regulations, 1995 nowhere prescribes the qualification of
“CCC”, as such, if a person is not having the certificate
aforesaid that would not make him ineligible to be considered
for appointment on the post in question.
8
7. The respondentCorporation after initiating the process
of selection considered all aspects of the matter objectively and
arrived at a conclusion that a selfcertification of the computer
qualification shall be appropriate to satisfy the requirement of
the computer knowledge. Such an administrative decision was
not open to be interfered by the Court while exercising powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants explained

their submissions in lucid. During the course of arguments, it was
also brought to our notice that after the judgment referred by the
learned Single Bench, a revised select list has already been notified
and appointments too have been given. The appellants have also
been discontinued from service subsequent thereto. The respondent
Recruiting Agency, while preparing the revised select list, has taken
into consideration the qualification of High School or Intermediate
only to assess the computer knowledge and, on basis of that,
appointments have been given. Meaning thereby, the certificate
issued by DOEACC relating to “CCC” has not been pressed into
consideration.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondentRecruiting Agency stated that after examining all
aspects of the process of selection in light of the judgment impugned,
it was considered appropriate to have a select list afresh by taking
into consideration the “CCC certificates” issued by the DOEACC or
equivalent thereto. The equivalence to the certificate aforesaid was
also examined by taking into consideration the curriculum of
Computer subject in High School or Intermediate examination.
According to learned counsel, the Commission adopted such mode in
light of Government letter dated 03.05.2016.
Looking to the statement made by learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondentRecruiting Agency and also by learned
9
counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants, we passed following
order on 09.08.2018:
“Having considered the facts stated before us especially

looking to the document (Annexure8) read with the
document (Annexure 9), we deem it appropriate to direct
the respondent The Electricity Service Commission, Uttar
Pradesh Power Corporation Limited to submit a statement
of fact in the form of affidavit to explain as to whether the
qualification of I.T.I. / vocational qualification possessed
by the appellants or the persons similarly situated was
taken into consideration while discontinuing them from
service on the count that they are not possessing "C.C.C."
certificate or a qualification equivalent thereto. A
statement is also required to be given to the effect that if
such certificates were taken into consideration then on
what basis they arrived at the conclusion that the subjects
undertaken in the course of I.T.I. were not satisfying the
need of the computer qualification equivalent to "C.C.C."
For the purpose learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Electricity Service Commission wants some time.”
In pursuance of the order aforesaid, a supplementary counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Electricity Commission. As
per the counter affidavit, the course of “CCC” is designed by National
Institution of Electronics and Information Technology (in short
'NIELIT') which was earlier known as “DOEACC”. The Commission,
being an Agency for recruitment, conducted selection process to
employ Technician GradeII as per Regulations, 1995. In pursuance
of the order dated 29.01.2018, the U.P. Power Corporation Limited
adhered the letter dated 03.05.2016 issued by the Principal
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh addressed to all Principal
Secretaries of various Departments in relation to determining
equivalence of “CCC certificate” visavis other qualifications. The
Commission while revising the list accepted the guidelines given
under the order dated 03.05.2016 referred above. The guidelines
prescribed under the letter dated 03.05.2016 are as follows:
1. The qualification of High School or Intermediate

examination with the subject of Computer Science from
Secondary Educational Council, Uttar Pradesh or from any
10
Institution/Education Board/Council established by the

Central or any State Government.
2. If any candidate has obtained Diploma or Degree in
Computer Science then he shall also be eligible to be
recruited as Junior Assistant/Stenographer.
From perusal of the facts stated in supplementary affidavit, it is
apparent that while considering candidature of all the candidates
who participated in the process of selection, the Commission looked
into the qualification and its ingredients as required under the letter
dated 03.05.2016. The letter dated 03.05.2016, as a matter of fact,
pertains to the mode adopted for equivalence of computer
qualification while recruiting Junior Assistants and Stenographers.
While making recruitment to the post of Junior Assistants and
Stenographers, there is no need to have any certificate of ITI or of a
qualification similar thereto. Under the letter dated 03.05.2016, no
need is there to consider the curriculum of ITI while assessing
equivalence as that is not an eligibility for making appointments on
the post of Junior Assistants/Stenographers.
In the case in hand, the qualification of ITI/Vocational qualification is
an eligibility essential. Respondents if have taken into consideration
the qualification of High School/Intermediate with the subject of
Computer to assess equivalence with “CCC” then they should have
extended the scope of letter dated 03.05.2016 for ITI/Vocational
qualification also.
We do not find any just reason for not taking into consideration the
qualification of ITI/Vocational qualification possessed by the
appellants or the persons similarly situated for making equivalence
with the computer knowledge possessed by a person having High
School/Intermediate examination certificate with Computer as a
subject. In absence of such equivalence, revision of the select list, in
our considered opinion, is apparently unjustified.
In view of whatever stated above without examining other issues

raised by learned counsel for the appellants, while keeping the
11
instant appeal pending for further hearing, we deem it appropriate to
direct the respondentElectricity Service Commission, U.P. Power
Corporation Limited, Lucknow to make equivalence of the
qualification of ITI/any Vocational qualification possessed by the
appellants and the persons similarly situated to the appellants in the
same terms that has been made for the qualification of High
School/Intermediate as per the letter dated 03.05.2016 referred in
preceding paragraphs. Such equivalence is required to be made by
the Commission on or before 10.09.2018. If the Commission arrives
at the conclusion that Computer knowledge extended in the course of
ITI/Vocational qualification as equivalent to “CCC certificate” or the
qualification possessed by the persons who are having Computer as a
subject in High School or Intermediate examination, a tentative
revised select list shall also be prepared.
A detailed report of the process of determination of equivalence

alongwith revised select list, if prepared, shall be placed on record by
the Corporation on next date of listing.
Let these appeals be listed on 11.09.2018.
Order Date : 24.8.2018
Shubham
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Spla (A) 585 2018

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Spla (A) 585 2018

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

Under the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench directed the

Suffice to mention that in the petitions for writ, most of the

A process of selection then was initiated in pursuance of the

The Commission under an Advertisement dated 24.04.2015 again

3. The petitions for writ were filed by the persons who

4. Learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the

5. The appellants submitted genuine certificates obtained

Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants explained

Looking to the statement made by learned counsel appearing on

“Having considered the facts stated before us especially

1. The qualification of High School or Intermediate

Institution/Education Board/Council established by the

In view of whatever stated above without examining other issues

A detailed report of the process of determination of equivalence

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen