Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

DOEACC”[Department of Electronics Accreditation Computer Courses now taken over by National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT)]– In 2013, this qualification was substituted with CCC Certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate – 2014 advertisement issued by Commission wherein inter alia CCC Certificate or its equivalent computer qualification was one of the compulsory qualifications – Select list dated. 14.07.2015 published – Persons not included in the list, filed writ petitions – Single Judge by judgment dated. 07.10.2017 quashed the list insofar it included candidates who did not hold CCC certificate by NIELIT – List revised, and the names of such candidates were deleted – Writ Petition filed challenging the order deleting name – Dismissed – Special Appeal dismissed by division bench – Candidates having CCC certificate or equivalent thereto were included in the select list (the appellants in C.A.No. 9026/19 & 9027/19), issued appointment orders and are working as on date – Division Bench in Special Appeal No.585/2018, set aside the judgment dated. 07.10.2017 and dismissed all the writ petitions – Held: In the earlier recruitment held in 2011 only CCC certificate issued by DOEACC was part of mandatory qualification– It was for the 2014 recruitment that CCC certificate or equivalent computer qualification was provided for– CCC certificate is a well1145 known certificate issued under the aegis of the Government of India and have been made part of essential qualifications for different posts throughout the country – No material to indicate that CCC certificate is also granted by any other body or authority – Thus, CCC certificate mentioned in the 2014 advertisement was CCC certificate as granted by NIELIT/DOEACC – Further, the advertisement in the present case neither envisaged nor permitted the candidates to give any self-certification or self-declaration that their computer qualification is equivalent to CCC – Equivalence of qualification claimed by candidates is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer, which was not undertaken in the present case, and cannot be left to candidates by their selfdeclaration – Thus, self-certification by the candidates of their computer qualification was not sufficient to treat them having passed the required qualification – Also, deletion of names of certain candidates from the select list was upheld by an earlier Division Bench – However, Division Bench in the impugned judgment without adverting to the same restored the select list, which was in existence on 14.07.2015, thus, the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained – Further, the judgment of Single Judge also cannot be faulted on the ground that all the selected candidates were not impleaded in the writ petitions challenging the select list dated. 14.07.2015 – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside, while that of the Single Judge dated. 07.10.2017 is restored – Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board of Operational Employees Category Service Regulations, 1995 – Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Act, 1948 – Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 – Constitution of India – Art. 16.

Practice & Procedure – Writ petition – Impleadment – Recruitment for Technician Grade-II under the 1995 Regulations – Mandatory qualification envisaged in the advertisement – Large number of candidates claiming qualification equivalent to the mandatory qualification were included without any scrutiny – Challenge to – Plea that non impleadment of each and every candidate in the select list is breach of principles of natural justice – Held: When the inclusion in the select list of large number of candidates is on the basis of an arbitrary/illegal process, the aggrieved parties can complain – In such cases necessity of impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted – In the present case, when select list contained names of 2211 candidates, it becomes unnecessary to implead every candidate in view of the nature of the challenge – Moreover, few selected candidates were impleaded in the writ petitions in representative capacity – Principle of natural justice.

Words & Expressions – “equivalent”, “self-attestation” – Meaning of – Discussed.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. CCC certificate is a well-known certificate, which is issued under the aegis of the Government of India, which certificates have been made part of 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. 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 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. The candidates who had submitted application in response to advertisement dated 14.09.2014 had also 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. The Commission and the Corporation accepted the judgment of 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 candidates who do not possess CCC certificate by DOEACC/NIELIT. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment erroneously held that employer after judgment dated 07.10.2017 did not take into consideration the CCC Certificate of DOEACC or NIELIT. CCC certificate as mentioned in the advertisement dated 14.09.2014 was CCC certificate as granted by NIELIT/DOEACC. [Paras 42, 44, 45, 47, 49 and 51] [1165-G-H; 1166-A; 1167-A-F; 1168-E; 1170-A-B-E]

2. 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. The 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 successf ul in written test, could be scrutinised.” The Clause (7) does not contemplate any selfdeclaration or self-certification of equivalence of computer qualification of the candidate. The advertisement neither envisaged nor permitted the candidates to give any selfcertification or self-declaration that their computer qualification is equivalent to CCC. 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 recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or selfdeclaration 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. 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. 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 do not fulfil the mandatory qualification as per the advertisement. 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. [Paras 52, 54, 55, 57-58] [1170-F-G; 1171F-H; 1172-A-E-H; 1173-A-C]

3.1 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. 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 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. 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. 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 at pages 225 to 230 of the paper book. For declaring any other certificate as equivalent to CCC, the syllabus on which CCC certificate has been granted is most material factor, which has to be looked into. In the present case, no exercise was 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. 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 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. [Paras 60-62, 64] [1173-G-H; 1174-A-D-G-H; 1175-A-B; 1176-C-E]

Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others (2017) 8 SCC 670 : [2017] 11 SCR 271 – relied on.

Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3 rd Edition – referred to.

3.2 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. 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. 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. [Paras 65,

66 and 68] [1176-F-H; 1177-G; 1178-D-E]

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Bihar and Others (2017) 4 SCC 357 : [2016] 8 SCR 815 – referred to.

4.1 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. The judgment of 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. [Paras 75, 76] [1183-E-G]

4.2 The fact that there are several vacancies due to nonjoining 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. 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 any direction need not be issued in that regard. There shall be liberty to such candidates to represent to the Corporation, which is the authority, to take a decision in accordance with law. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 09.05.2019 is set aside and the judgment of the Single Judge dated 07.10.2017 is restored. [Paras 77-79] [1184-A-B-E-G]