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
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 583 of 2018
Appellant :- Satish Kumar And 17 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 16 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Singh, Ashok Mehta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Ramendra Pratap Singh

with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 584 of 2018
Appellant :- Narendra Kumar And 33 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 23 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, G.K. Singh,
Pankaj Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Srivastava
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 586 of 2018
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
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhishek
Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Srivastava
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 588 of 2018
Appellant :- Mahendra Kumar And 47 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 23 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhinav
Ojha, Abhishek Srivastava, Siddharth Khare
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 589 of 2018
Appellant :- Anshu Kumar And 26 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 23 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Chandan Sharma, Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhinav
Ojha, Abhishek Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Srivastava
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 590 of 2018
 2

Appellant :- Komal Maurya And 11 Ors

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 23 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Shree Prakash Giri, Pramil Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhishek
Srivastava, Ramendra Pratap Singh, Sunil Kumar Srivastava

with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 591 of 2018
Appellant :- Nepal Singh And 18 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 23 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Hanuman Prasad Dube
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhishek
Srivastava, Ramendra Pratap Singh, Sunil Kumar Srivastava
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 773 of 2018
Appellant :- Ravi Shankar And 11 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 23 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shailendra Nath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhishek
Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Srivastava
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 774 of 2018
Appellant :- Rishikesh Maurya And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 24 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar
Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 775 of 2018
Appellant :- Dimple Supriya Yaduvanshi And 18
Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 15 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anoop Trivedi, Om Prakash Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Abhijeet Singh, Abhishek
Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Srivastava

with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 776 of 2018
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 Writ-A 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 Grade-II by taking into consideration the computer
qualification certificates represented as equivalent to “CCC” on basis
of self-certification.

The appellant-petitioners 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 Grade-II 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

Grade-II. 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 respondent-employer 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 self-certification 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 respondent-Commission
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 Grade-II 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 self-certified about such equivalence.

The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are as follows:-

1. The process of selection for appointment as Technician

Grade-II 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 de-settled 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 non-joinder 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 I-A. As per the qualification
prescribed, an incumbent to be considered for appointment as a
Technician Grade-II 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 respondent-Corporation after initiating the process of

selection considered all aspects of the matter objectively and
arrived at a conclusion that a self-certification 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 respondent-Recruiting 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 respondent-Recruiting 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 (Annexure-8) 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 Grade-II 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” vis-a-vis 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 respondent-Electricity 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.)