Supreme Court Upholds Relaxation for Certificate Submission in Technician Appointments: Sanjay K. Dixit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: February 22, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 147
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
Can a selection process be altered mid-way by relaxing eligibility criteria not mentioned in the original advertisement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning the appointment of Technicians in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation. The court examined the validity of relaxing the deadline for submitting a mandatory computer course certificate after the selection process had begun. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation issued an advertisement on March 4, 2011, to fill 2,974 posts for Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical). The advertisement specified that candidates must have a two-year National/State level professional certificate in Electrician Trade with High School from the Board of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh, or equivalent with Science and Math subjects. Additionally, a Course on Computer Concept (CCC) certificate from the Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC) was mandatory at the time of the interview. Over 16,000 candidates applied, and after a written exam and interviews, many candidates could not produce the DOEACC certificate. The Chairman and Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation initially extended the deadline for certificate submission by three months, allowing candidates to participate in interviews, but stated that appointment letters would be issued only after the certificates were submitted. This deadline was further extended by another three months on April 19, 2012. The results were announced on May 21, 2012, with a final deadline of July 31, 2012, for certificate submission. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the selections, arguing that candidates without the certificate at the time of the interview were included in the select list.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the inclusion of candidates who did not have the DOEACC certificate at the time of the interview. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed these petitions, citing Rule 45 of the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995, which allows the Chairman to relax rules. The Single Judge held that the Chairman’s decision to relax the rule was valid, given the representations made by candidates. The unsuccessful candidates then appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench partly allowed the appeals, ruling that only candidates who submitted the DOEACC certificate before March 31, 2012, were eligible for inclusion in the select list. The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. [(2011) 12 SCC 859], stating that relaxation of rules is impermissible without prior mention in the advertisement. However, they upheld the first relaxation, citing public interest, as the DOEACC was delaying the issuance of certificates.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995, specifically Rule 45, which grants the Chairman of the Corporation the power to relax the rules. The advertisement issued on March 4, 2011, also stipulated the requirement of the DOEACC certificate at the time of the interview. The Supreme Court also considered Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, respectively. The Court also relied on its previous judgment in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. [(2011) 12 SCC 859], which held that any relaxation of rules must be mentioned in the advertisement.

Arguments

Arguments by the Unsuccessful Candidates (Appellants):

• The relaxation of the rule regarding submission of the DOEACC certificate was illegal because the advertisement did not mention any possibility of relaxation.
• The rules of the selection process could not be altered after the process had commenced.
• The submission of the DOEACC certificate at the time of the interview was mandatory, and candidates who did not comply were ineligible.
• Even if the power of relaxation existed in the rules, it was mandatory to mention it in the advertisement.

Arguments by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation (Respondents):

• The Chairman/Managing Director had the power to relax the rules under Rule 45 of the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995.
• The relaxation was given due to genuine difficulties faced by candidates in obtaining the DOEACC certificate.
• The selection was based on performance in the written test and interview, and the DOEACC certificate was not an essential requirement.
• The relaxation was given in the larger public interest to ensure that meritorious candidates were not penalized for delays in the issuance of certificates by DOEACC.

Innovativeness of the argument: The unsuccessful candidates innovatively argued that even if the power to relax rules existed, it was mandatory to mention it in the advertisement to ensure transparency and equal opportunity for all candidates.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the relaxation of the rule regarding the submission of the DOEACC certificate was valid, given that the advertisement did not mention any possibility of relaxation?
2. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the relaxation for candidates who submitted the certificate before March 28, 2012, while denying the same benefit to those who submitted it later?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. [(2011) 12 SCC 859] – The Supreme Court of India held that any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement must be specifically mentioned in the advertisement or the relevant statutory rules. The court stated that appointments to public office must be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and there should be no arbitrariness.
• Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam & Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 227] – The Supreme Court of India held that relaxation can be done in larger public interest.
• Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. [(2007) 3 SCC 720] – The Supreme Court of India clarified that the ratio decidendi of a judgment, and not the final order, forms a precedent.

The Court also considered Rule 45 of the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995, which grants the Chairman of the Corporation the power to relax the rules.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. [(2011) 12 SCC 859]* – The Court followed this authority to hold that any relaxation of rules must be mentioned in the advertisement.
• Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam & Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 227]* – The Court acknowledged the High Court’s reliance on this case for the principle of relaxation in public interest, but distinguished its application in the present case.
• Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. [(2007) 3 SCC 720]* – The Court cited this authority to clarify that the ratio decidendi of a judgment, and not the final order, forms a precedent.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with upholding the principles of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity in public employment. The Court emphasized that any relaxation of rules must be explicitly mentioned in the advertisement to ensure that all eligible candidates have a fair chance to compete. The Court also considered the genuine difficulties faced by candidates in obtaining the DOEACC certificate due to delays by the issuing authority. However, the Court also noted that the second relaxation was not justified as there was no evidence of further delays by DOEACC, and candidates who availed the second relaxation were not diligent. The Court also considered the fact that those who submitted the certificates before 28th March, 2012, had been working continuously, and any change would have an adverse effect on the ongoing selection process.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following steps:

1. The Court noted that the advertisement required the submission of the DOEACC certificate at the time of the interview.
2. The Court referred to the judgment in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. [(2011) 12 SCC 859], which held that any relaxation of rules must be mentioned in the advertisement.
3. The Court observed that the advertisement in this case did not mention any possibility of relaxation.
4. The Court concluded that the relaxation of the rule was impermissible, as it was not mentioned in the advertisement, thus violating the principles of fairness and equal opportunity.
5. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant relaxation to candidates who submitted their certificates before March 28, 2012, as they were affected by the delay in the issuance of certificates by DOEACC.
6. The Court held that candidates who submitted their certificates after March 28, 2012, could not be given the same benefit as they were not similarly situated and there was no evidence of further delay on the part of DOEACC.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, stating that the rules and the advertisement must be followed strictly to ensure fairness and transparency in public employment. The Court stated that “There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved.” The Court also noted that “Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” The Court also stated that “It is the ratio decidendi of a judgment and not the final order in the judgment, which forms a precedent.”

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Any relaxation of eligibility criteria in public employment must be explicitly mentioned in the advertisement.
• Rules of selection processes cannot be altered mid-way without due notice.
• The principle of equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India must be strictly adhered to in public employment.
• Courts may grant relief in cases where candidates have been affected by circumstances beyond their control, but this must be balanced with the need to maintain fairness and transparency.
• The ratio decidendi of a judgment, and not the final order, forms a precedent.

Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, which directed the authorities to declare the results afresh by deleting the names of candidates who produced the CCC certificate after March 31, 2012, from the select list. The Court did not give any further directions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that any relaxation of rules must be mentioned in the advertisement to ensure transparency and equal opportunity. This case reinforces the principle established in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. [(2011) 12 SCC 859], that public employment must be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated procedure and any relaxation must be made known to all candidates.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision that while the initial relaxation for certificate submission was valid due to circumstances beyond the candidates’ control, any further relaxation was not permissible. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the advertisement and ensuring equal opportunity for all candidates. The judgment reinforces the principle that any relaxation of rules must be mentioned in the advertisement to ensure transparency and fairness.