Service law – Termination – Selection to the post of Technician Grade-II – Course on computer concepts certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate mandatory educational qualification to be submitted at the time of interview – Written exam and interview held and final select list prepared – Issuance of appointment letters to the applicants – Challenge to, by unsuccessful candidates – Single Judge of the High Court quashed the select list insofar as it included candidates who did not hold CCC certificate conferred or recognized by NIELIT – Also directed the Corporation to re-draw the select list – Thereafter, Electricity Service Commission published the list of candidates whose selection was not found to be in accordance with the eligibility as per the direction of the Single Judge – Consequently, their services were terminated – List contained names of the applicants – Writ appeal by applicants – Division Bench allowed the same setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge – Appeal thereagainst wherein this Court set aside the judgment passed by the Division Bench upholding that of the Single Judge – Writ Petition by applicants seeking re-instatement which was dismissed – Correctness: Held: When the advertisement as well as the 1995 Regulations required the CCC certificate to be produced at the time of interview, if it is permitted to produce the same subsequent to the date of interview, it would be contrary to the advertisement and the 1995 Regulations – Corporation misinterpreted the judgment of the Single Judge and terminated the services of the applicants who were otherwise entitled to be continued as per the judgment – Services of such of the candidates who were selected in the select list and had produced the CCC certificate at the time of the interview could not have been terminated – Corporation grossly erred in terminating their services – Furthermore, this Court held that the object and purpose of the direction by the Single Judge was to scrutinize the qualifications of those candidates, who had claimed equivalent certificate, those who were found possessing equivalent computer qualification so as to retain their names in the select list – Direction given by the Single Judge was applicable, apart from the candidates who were having CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT, to the candidates who were covered under the guidelines and were also treated as equivalent to CCC certificate – Corporation has been taking contradictory stands – Before the High Court, it took a stand that not only such candidates having CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT but also such candidates who had submitted certificate by self-certification were entitled to be considered and thereafter, took a stand that the candidates who did not have CCC certificate on the last date of application could not be considered as eligible candidates – Stand was contrary not only to the advertisement but also to the office memorandum of the Board – Submission of the candidates who did not have CCC certificate even on the date of their interview but have obtained the same subsequently cannot be accepted – Thus, fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art.142 of the Constitution – Applicants who found place in the select list and who possessed/produced the CCC certificate at the time of their interview to be reinstated forthwith. [Paras 20-29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.