A) Abstract/Headnote

This case involves the legal dispute over termination of candidates appointed to the post of Technician Grade-II in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The controversy revolved around the requirement of possessing a Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) certificate at the time of the interview, as per the 1995 Regulations amended by UPPCL in 2011. The Supreme Court upheld the mandate that candidates must possess the CCC certificate on the interview date and rejected equivalence claims based on self-certifications or post-interview qualifications. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the Court reinstated candidates who fulfilled the eligibility criteria at the time of their interview, emphasizing adherence to recruitment norms and equitable justice.

Keywords: Termination, Technician Grade-II, CCC Certificate, Recruitment Regulations, Extraordinary Jurisdiction.

B) Case Details

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

ii) Case Number:
Miscellaneous Application No. 2399 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019

iii) Judgment Date:
5th November 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan

vi) Author of Judgment:
Justice B.R. Gavai

vii) Citation:
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 428

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
• U.P. State Power Parishad Operative Employees Cadre Service Regulations, 1995
• Constitution of India, Article 142

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, dated 9th May 2019.

x) Case is Related to:
Service Law, Recruitment Law, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law.

C) Introduction and Background of the Judgment

The case arises from disputes over the legality of UPPCL’s termination of selected candidates in its Technician Grade-II recruitment process. The key issue was the interpretation of amended regulations requiring a CCC certificate at the time of the interview. A writ petition filed by unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection process, leading to conflicting judgments at different judicial levels. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court for resolution.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Recruitment Advertisement:
   UPPCL issued an advertisement in September 2014 for 2,211 Technician Grade-II posts, mandating a CCC certificate or equivalent qualification.

2. Interview and Selection:
   Candidates were required to produce the CCC certificate during interviews held from December 2014 to July 2015. Successful candidates were issued appointment letters in July 2015.

3. Legal Challenges:
   Unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition, alleging irregularities in the select list, particularly the inclusion of candidates lacking a CCC certificate by the interview date.

4. High Court Judgments:
   The Allahabad High Court’s Single Judge directed UPPCL to redraw the list, while the Division Bench later overturned this decision, allowing candidates without CCC certificates to be retained.

5. Supreme Court Intervention:
   The Supreme Court in 2019 upheld the Single Judge’s decision, confirming that only candidates possessing a CCC certificate at the interview date were eligible.

6. Current Proceedings:
   The applicants sought reinstatement following their termination, arguing compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether candidates appointed despite lacking the requisite CCC certificate could retain their positions.
2. Whether equivalence based on self-certifications or post-interview qualifications sufficed under the regulations.
3. Whether the recruitment process adhered to the advertisement and applicable legal standards.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. Regulatory Compliance:
   Candidates possessing a CCC certificate during the interview were eligible under the 1995 Regulations and related amendments. Termination was unwarranted.

2. High Court Errors:
   The Division Bench’s acceptance of self-certifications undermined statutory requirements.

3. Equitable Relief:
   Applicants sought reinstatement due to compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. Eligibility Cut-off:
   Respondents argued that eligibility must be determined by the last date of application, not the interview date.

2. Statutory Interpretation:
   Self-certification of equivalence could suffice for fulfilling the CCC certificate requirement.

3. Recruitment Integrity:
   The termination was necessary to rectify irregularities highlighted by the High Court.

H) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

• The CCC certificate or equivalent qualification was mandatory at the time of the interview as per the advertisement and amended 1995 Regulations.
• Candidates lacking the certificate on the interview date could not be retained, irrespective of post-interview acquisition.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Self-certifications without institutional authority cannot substitute recognized qualifications in public recruitment.
• Deviations from advertised criteria violate principles of transparency and fairness in public employment.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. Candidates with a CCC certificate on the interview date to be reinstated immediately.
2. Reinstated candidates not entitled to back wages but to continuity in service and seniority.
3. Respondents directed to follow prescribed norms in future recruitment.

I) Conclusion and Comments

The judgment underscores the sanctity of advertised eligibility criteria in public recruitment. The Supreme Court reinforced the principle of strict adherence to regulatory standards, ensuring fairness and transparency. The decision balances rectification of administrative lapses with equitable relief for compliant candidates.

J) References

Important Cases Referred:

1. Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2019) 16 SCR 1145

Important Statutes Referred:

1. Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
2. U.P. State Power Parishad Operative Employees Cadre Service Regulations, 1995
3. Constitution of India, Article 142