Candidates Selected After Producing Qualification Certificate During Interview Cannot Be Terminated: SC Orders Reinstatement Of UPPCL Employees
|The Supreme Court has ordered the reinstatement of the UPPCL employees holding that candidates selected after producing the required qualification certificate during the interview cannot be terminated.
The Court allowed the appeal filed by the applicants and directed their reinstatement for the post of Technician Grade-II (Electrical) with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The applicants had been terminated on grounds that they possessed the Certificate in Computer Concepts (CCC) after the application deadline despite submitting the certificate at the time of their interviews, as per the advertisement requirements.
A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “We have therefore no hesitation in holding that services of such of the candidates who were selected in the select list dated 14th July 2015 and had produced the CCC certificate at the time of the interview could not have been terminated. We find that the respondent-Corporation has grossly erred in terminating their services. At the same time, we are not inclined to accept the contention of those candidates who did not have CCC certificate even on the date of their interview but have obtained the same subsequently. 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.”
Senior Advocates Dama Seshadri Naidu, Amit Anand Tiwari and Rana Mukherjee represented the applicants, while Senior Advocate S.K. Saxena appeared for the respondents.
The recruitment process began when UPPCL issued an advertisement for 2,211 Technician Grade-II (Electrical) posts, requiring candidates to have a CCC certificate or an equivalent qualification. The UPPCL maintained that candidates without the CCC certificate were ineligible, even if they presented it at the interview stage, as required.
The Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that possessing the CCC certificate by the interview date was sufficient for eligibility. However, UPPCL’s subsequent termination of these candidates was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the termination and found UPPCL’s interpretation inconsistent with its Joffice memorandum and the Court’s own observations in Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020). It held that candidates who had presented the CCC certificate at the time of their interview had fulfilled the eligibility criteria, as stipulated in the initial recruitment terms, and thus should not have been removed from their positions.
“It is thus clear from the aforesaid that such of the candidates who were having CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT on the date of interview and who were part of the select list dated 14th July 2015 could not have been terminated by the respondent-Corporation,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court clarified, “It can be seen that this Court held that the object and purpose of the direction was to scrutinize the qualifications of those candidates, who had claimed equivalent certificate. It was only for the purpose to scrutinize the qualification of those candidates, who were found possessing equivalent computer qualification so as to retain their names in the select list. It is further clear that the direction given by the learned 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 dated 3rd May 2016 and were also treated as equivalent to CCC certificate. Ultimately, this Court upheld the finding of the learned Single Judge and held that there was no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 832)
Appearance:
Senior Advocates Dama Seshadri Naidu, Jayant Nath, Sanjay Nuli, S.K. Saxena, Amit Anand Tiwari, Garima Prasad, Sanjay Hegde and Rana Mukherjee; AOR Rajivkumar, Arpit Shukla, Aviral Saxena and Shashank Shekhar Singh, et al; Advocates Deepti Singh, Krishna M. Singh, Deepti Singh, Gargi Srivastava, Daisy Hannah, Abhinav Sharma, Vikas Jain, Abhinav Singh, et al