LEGAL ISSUE: Whether self-certification of computer qualifications is sufficient for recruitment to public posts, and the validity of equivalent computer qualifications to the CCC certificate.
CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment
Case Name: Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Judgment Date: 16 December 2019
Date of the Judgment: 16 December 2019
Citation: (2019) Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Navin Sinha, J.
Can a recruiting agency accept self-certification of computer qualifications when the advertisement specifies a particular certification or its equivalent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-II in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. The core issue revolved around the validity of “equivalent” computer qualifications to the Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) certificate, and whether candidates could self-certify their qualifications. This judgment clarifies the importance of adhering to prescribed qualifications and the need for a transparent verification process in public employment. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Case Background
The case concerns the recruitment process for Technician Grade-II posts in the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Service Commission (Commission) conducted the recruitment. The initial advertisement in 2014 required candidates to have a High School certificate with Science and Mathematics, an Electrician Trade certificate, and a “Course on Computer Concept (CCC) Certificate or its equivalent.”
Initially, the UPPCL required a CCC certificate issued by DOEACC (now NIELIT). Later, they modified it to include “CCC certificate or its equivalent.” The Commission then issued an advertisement for 2211 vacancies for Technician Grade-II posts. Many candidates submitted certificates from private institutions, claiming them to be equivalent to the CCC certificate. The Commission did not verify the equivalence of these certificates before publishing the select list.
Some candidates who were not selected filed a writ petition challenging the inclusion of candidates with unverified certificates. The learned Single Judge of the High Court ruled in their favor, quashing the select list and directing the Commission to re-evaluate the certificates. This decision was appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court, which overturned the Single Judge’s decision. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1948 | Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Act enacted, leading to the formation of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board. |
| 1995 | Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board of Operational Employees Category Service Regulations, 1995, framed, outlining qualifications for Technician Grade-II posts. |
| 1999 | Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act enacted, replacing the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. |
| 24.12.2010 | UPPCL mandates a three-month certificate course in Windows knowledge from State Government-recognized computer institutions, in addition to the qualifications in Regulations, 1995. |
| 29.01.2011 | UPPCL substitutes the computer qualification with a “Certificate of 80 Hours Course on Computer Concept (CCC) issued by DOEACC”. |
| 05.07.2013 | Managing Director of UPPCL substitutes the computer qualification with “Course on Computer Concept (CCC) Certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate.” |
| 2011 | Electricity Service Commission conducts selection for 2974 Technician Grade-II posts, requiring a CCC certificate by DOEACC. |
| 06.09.2014 | Electricity Service Commission issues advertisement No.4/V.SE.Aa/2014 for 2211 Technician Grade-II vacancies, requiring a CCC certificate or its equivalent. |
| 08.11.2014 | Written examination conducted for the advertised posts. |
| Dec 2014/Jan 2015 | Interviews conducted for candidates who passed the written examination. |
| 24.04.2015 | Commission issues a second advertisement to fill 884 posts of Technician Grade II. |
| 14.07.2015 | Commission publishes a select list of 2211 candidates in response to the first advertisement. |
| 31.07.2015 | Writ Petition No.41750 of 2015 filed, challenging the select list. High Court orders no final decision to be taken based on the select list. |
| 17.02.2016 | High Court orders that all appointments will be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. |
| 12.08.2016 | High Court directs the Commission to file a further affidavit regarding the equivalence of computer certificates. |
| 07.10.2017 | Learned Single Judge of the High Court quashes the select list, directing the Commission to redraw it, including only candidates with a recognized CCC certificate or its equivalent. |
| 21.06.2018 | Revised merit list published by the Commission, excluding candidates without a recognized CCC certificate or its equivalent. |
| 22.06.2018 | Division Bench dismisses a Special Appeal filed by a candidate whose name was deleted from the revised list, upholding the requirement of a CCC certificate or its equivalent. |
| 24.08.2018 | Division Bench directs the respondent to make equivalence of the qualification of ITI/ any Vocational qualification possessed by the appellants and persons similarly situated to the appellants. |
| 01.10.2018 | Supreme Court makes the direction issued by the Division Bench to the Commission inoperative in the interregnum and requests the High Court to dispose of the Special Appeals as expeditiously as possible. |
| 09.05.2019 | Division Bench of the High Court allows the special appeals, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissing all the writ petitions. |
| 16.12.2019 | Supreme Court allows the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restoring the judgment of the learned Single Judge. |
Course of Proceedings
The initial writ petition was filed by candidates who were not selected, challenging the inclusion of candidates who did not possess a CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT or its equivalent. The learned Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the select list to the extent it included candidates without a recognized CCC certificate. The court directed the Commission to redraw the list, including only those with a recognized CCC certificate or its equivalent.
The Commission accepted the Single Judge’s judgment and revised the select list. However, some candidates who were removed from the list filed appeals. A Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Judge’s decision, stating that self-certification of equivalent computer qualifications was sufficient. The Division Bench also held that the employer did not commit any wrong in accepting self-certification for computer literacy equivalent to CCC. This led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the advertisement for the Technician Grade-II posts and the relevant regulations. The key legal provisions and regulations include:
- Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Act, 1948: This act established the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, which framed regulations for the Electricity Service Commission.
- Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999: This act replaced the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL).
- Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board of Operational Employees Category Service Regulations, 1995: These regulations provided the qualifications for the post of Technician Grade-II, which included passing High School or its equivalent with Science and Mathematics, and an All India/State Trade Certificate in Electrical Trade.
- Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2010: The Corporation provided that apart from qualification mentioned in Regulations, 1995 the persons must have three months certificate course in regard to knowledge of Windows issued by Computer Institutions recognised by State Government.
- Office Memorandum dated 29.01.2011: The UPPCL substituted the computer qualification with a “Certificate of 80 Hours Course on Computer Concept (CCC) issued by DOEACC.”
- Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2013: The Managing Director of UPPCL substituted the computer qualification with “Course on Computer Concept (CCC) Certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate.”
- Advertisement No.4/V.SE.Aa/2014 dated 06.09.2014: This advertisement specified the compulsory qualifications for the Technician Grade-II posts, including a CCC certificate or its equivalent.
The Supreme Court examined how these provisions and the advertisement’s requirements were interpreted by the High Court and the recruiting authorities. The court emphasized the need to adhere strictly to the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and the importance of a fair and transparent selection process.
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellants (Mukul Kumar Tyagi and Others):
- The appellants contended that the select list dated 14.07.2015 included candidates who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement dated 06.09.2014.
- They argued that many candidates relied on certificates from private institutions that were not equivalent to the CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
- The appellants asserted that self-certification by candidates claiming equivalence to the CCC certificate was unauthorized and illegal.
- They highlighted that the Commission did not conduct any exercise to verify the equivalence of the certificates claimed by candidates.
- The appellants emphasized that the qualifications prescribed by the employer must be strictly adhered to in the selection process.
- They argued that the CCC certificate is issued only by DOEACC/NIELIT and no other authority is recognized to issue it.
- The appellants further contended that the ITI certificate and other vocational certificates cannot be considered equivalent to the CCC certificate.
- They pointed out that the revised select list was drawn up as per the order dated 03.05.2016 issued by the State of U.P., which provided a mode to be adopted for equivalence of computer qualification.
- They submitted that the Division Bench erroneously accepted self-certification by the candidates as equivalent to the CCC certificate.
Arguments of the Respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others):
- The respondents argued that the learned Single Judge could not have quashed the select list without making the selected candidates a party to the writ petition.
- They contended that the writ petitioners challenged the select list after having participated in the selection process.
- The respondents submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2013 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation did away with the requirement of having a CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT.
- They argued that it is for the employer or recruiting agency to declare the equivalence of certificates, and the Commission was satisfied with the equivalent certificates claimed by the respondents.
- The respondents stated that most of the candidates have obtained the CCC certificate before the date of interview.
- They also argued that the Regulations, 1995, which is a statutory regulation for recruitment, does not require a CCC certificate.
- The respondents contended that self-certification is a mode that is prescribed in the advertisement itself.
- They submitted that the ultimate conclusion of the Division Bench is correct and needs no interference by the Supreme Court.
Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments:
| Main Submission | Appellants’ Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Select List |
|
|
| Equivalence of Qualifications |
|
|
| Self-Certification |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- What is the “Course on Computer Concept” (CCC) Certificate, and which CCC certificate did the advertisement dated 06.09.2014 envisage?
- Did the advertisement dated 06.09.2014 envisage self-certification by the candidates of “equivalence” to the CCC certificate of their computer qualification, and was such self-certification sufficient to treat them as having possessed the required qualification?
- Whether the Corporation or Commission had framed or adopted any criteria or guidelines to determine “equivalence” to the CCC certificate?
- Whether any exercise was conducted by the Commission in the process of recruitment to determine “equivalence” of computer qualifications of those who did not possess a CCC certificate?
- Whether the Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge to exclude those who do not have a CCC certificate?
- Whether the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the select list when the selected candidates were not impleaded in the writ petitions?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons Given by Supreme Court |
|---|---|---|
| What is the “Course on Computer Concept” (CCC) Certificate, and which CCC certificate did the advertisement dated 06.09.2014 envisage? | The CCC certificate as mentioned in the advertisement was the CCC certificate granted by NIELIT/DOEACC. | The Court found that CCC certificate is a well-known certificate issued under the aegis of the Government of India, and there was no evidence indicating that any other body or authority was issuing it. |
| Did the advertisement dated 06.09.2014 envisage self-certification by the candidates of “equivalence” to the CCC certificate of their computer qualification, and was such self-certification sufficient to treat them as having possessed the required qualification? | The advertisement did not envisage self-certification, and self-certification was not sufficient to treat candidates as having the required qualification. | The Court noted that the advertisement only referred to self-attested copies of certificates, not self-declaration of equivalence. The equivalence of qualification is a matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency. |
| Whether the Corporation or Commission had framed or adopted any criteria or guidelines to determine “equivalence” to the CCC certificate? | No criteria or guidelines were framed or adopted by the Corporation or Commission before the completion of the recruitment process. | The Court found that neither the Corporation nor the Commission had established any guidelines or criteria for determining the equivalence of computer qualifications to the CCC certificate. |
| Whether any exercise was conducted by the Commission in the process of recruitment to determine “equivalence” of computer qualifications of those who did not possess a CCC certificate? | No exercise was conducted by the Commission to determine the equivalence of qualifications. | The Court noted that the Commission did not scrutinize the qualifications of candidates who did not have a CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT. |
| Whether the Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge to exclude those who do not have a CCC certificate? | The Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the direction of the learned Single Judge. | The Court held that the learned Single Judge’s direction was in accordance with law and did substantial justice by directing scrutiny of the qualifications. |
| Whether the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the select list when the selected candidates were not impleaded in the writ petitions? | The learned Single Judge’s judgment cannot be faulted on the ground that all the selected candidates were not impleaded in the writ petitions. | The Court noted that the writ petitioners were not aggrieved by the qualifications but by the inclusion of unqualified persons in the select list. The Court also noted that some selected candidates were impleaded in the writ petitions in a representative capacity. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered | Brief on the provision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition | – | The Court used the definition of “equivalent” from this book to determine the meaning of equivalent qualification in the context of the case. | The definition of “Equivalent” as: “Equal in worth or value. Equal in value, measure, force, effect etc.” |
| Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others, (2017) 8 SCC 670 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of equal opportunity in public employment and the need to follow the principle of equal opportunity. | The court laid down that the State is under the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 to follow the principle of equal opportunity in public employment. |
| Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357 | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, stating that the present case involves the inclusion of unqualified candidates in the select list, not a challenge to the selection process itself. | The court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | The select list included candidates who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and self-certification was illegal. | The Court agreed, holding that the select list was flawed and self-certification was not sufficient. |
| Appellants | The CCC certificate is issued only by DOEACC/NIELIT and no other authority is recognized to issue it. | The Court concurred, stating that the CCC certificate mentioned in the advertisement was the CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. |
| Appellants | The Commission did not conduct any exercise to verify the equivalence of the certificates claimed by candidates. | The Court accepted this, noting that no criteria or guidelines were framed by the employer or the recruiting agency to determine the equivalence. |
| Respondents | The learned Single Judge could not have quashed the select list without making the selected candidates a party to the writ petition. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the writ petitioners were not aggrieved by the qualifications but by the inclusion of unqualified persons in the select list. |
| Respondents | The Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2013 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation did away with the requirement of having a CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT. | The Court did not accept this argument, stating that the CCC certificate mentioned in the O.M. and advertisement was the CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. |
| Respondents | Self-certification is a mode that is prescribed in the advertisement itself. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the advertisement did not envisage self-certification of equivalence. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition: The Court used the definition of “equivalent” from this book to determine the meaning of equivalent qualification in the context of the case.
- Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others, (2017) 8 SCC 670: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of equal opportunity in public employment and the need to follow the principle of equal opportunity.
- Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the present case involves the inclusion of unqualified candidates in the select list, not a challenge to the selection process itself.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to maintain the integrity of the recruitment process and ensure fairness in public employment. The Court emphasized the following points:
- Adherence to Prescribed Qualifications: The Court highlighted that the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement must be strictly adhered to. The recruiting agency cannot dilute these qualifications or accept self-certification without proper verification.
- Importance of Verification: The Court stressed that it is the duty of the recruiting agency to scrutinize the qualifications of candidates, especially when an “equivalent” qualification is mentioned. The agency cannot abdicate this duty and rely on self-declarations by candidates.
- Fairness and Transparency: The Court emphasized that the selection process must be fair and transparent, ensuring that only eligible candidates are selected. Including unqualified candidates in the select list violates the rights of eligible candidates and undermines the integrity of the process.
- Validity of CCC Certificate: The Court clarified that the CCC certificate mentioned in the advertisement was the certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. No other body or authority was recognized to issue this certificate.
- Rejection of Self-Certification: The Court rejected the Division Bench’s view that self-certification of equivalence is sufficient. The Court held that the recruiting agency must verify the equivalence of qualifications based on established criteria and guidelines.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of adhering to prescribed qualifications | 30% |
| Need for proper verification by recruiting agency | 35% |
| Ensuring fairness and transparency in the selection process | 25% |
| Validity of CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered and rejected the argument that self-certification of equivalent computer qualifications was sufficient. The Court reasoned that the advertisement did not envisage self-certification of equivalence, and the recruiting agency had a duty to verify the equivalence of qualifications. The Court also rejected the argument that the requirement of a CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT was done away with by the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2013. The Court held that the CCC certificate mentioned in the advertisement was the certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
The Court also considered and rejected the argument that the learned Single Judge could not have quashed the select list without making the selected candidates a party to the writ petition. The Court reasoned that the writ petitioners were not aggrieved by the qualifications but by the inclusion of unqualified persons in the select list.
The Court concluded that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the direction of the learned Single Judge, and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
“The self-certification or self-declaration 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 as noted above.”
“The Division Bench was not correct in making above observations since neither the learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 07.10.2017 directed for not taking into consideration CCC certificate by DOEACC nor Corporation or Commission deleted those names from the merit list who had CCC certificate from DOEACC.”
Key Takeaways
- Strict Adherence to Qualifications: Recruiting agencies must strictly adhere to the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement.
- No Self-Certification for Equivalence: Self-certification of equivalent qualifications is not sufficient; the recruiting agency must verify the equivalence.
- Importance of Scrutiny: Recruiting agencies must scrutinize the qualifications of candidates, especially when “equivalent” qualifications are mentioned.
- Transparency in Recruitment: The selection process must be fair and transparent, ensuring that only eligible candidates are selected.
- Validity of CCC Certificate: The CCC certificate mentioned in the advertisement was the certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
- Guidelines for Equivalence: Recruiting agencies must establish clear guidelines for determining the equivalence of qualifications.
Potential Future Impact:
This judgment sets a precedent for future recruitment processes in public employment. It clarifies that recruiting agencies cannot accept self-certification of equivalent qualifications and must conduct a proper verification process. The judgment also underscores the importance of adhering to prescribed qualifications and ensuring fairness and transparency in the selection process. This ruling will likely lead to more rigorous and transparent recruitment processes in the future.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions regarding the filling of vacancies. However, the Court observed that it is for the Corporation to take any decision regarding the vacancies due to non-joining or resignation. The Court also observed that aggrieved candidates can represent to the Corporation.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment discussed inthis judgment. The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of the advertisement and the relevant regulations concerning the recruitment process. The court analyzed the following:
- Office Memorandum dated 29.01.2011: The UPPCL substituted the computer qualification with a “Certificate of 80 Hours Course on Computer Concept (CCC) issued by DOEACC.”
- Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2013: The Managing Director of UPPCL substituted the computer qualification with “Course on Computer Concept (CCC) Certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate.”
- Advertisement No.4/V.SE.Aa/2014 dated 06.09.2014: This advertisement specified the compulsory qualifications for the Technician Grade-II posts, including a CCC certificate or its equivalent.
The court’s analysis focused on whether the term “or its equivalent” in the advertisement allowed for self-certification by candidates, and whether the Commission had a duty to verify the equivalence of claimed qualifications. The court found that self-certification was not sufficient and that the Commission failed to conduct the necessary verification.