In a critical ruling, the Supreme Court, led by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ordered the reinstatement of candidates who had been wrongfully terminated from their positions as Technician Grade-II (Electrical) at the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The case, Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019), underscores the Court’s stance that services of candidates cannot be terminated if they met the required qualifications by the date of their interview. The ruling grants continuity in service and seniority benefits to the affected candidates, although back wages were not awarded.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to an advertisement issued on September 6, 2014, by the UPPCL, inviting applications for 2,211 posts of Technician Grade-II (Electrical). According to the advertisement, candidates were required to possess a Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) certificate or an equivalent, a standard set by the UPPCL’s 1995 Service Regulations. Although the CCC certificate could be provided up until the interview, a subsequent controversy emerged when candidates were terminated on the grounds that they did not possess the CCC certificate by the application deadline, September 30, 2014.
Initially, the selection list published in July 2015 included candidates who acquired their CCC certificates either by interview or through recognized equivalence certifications. After unsuccessful candidates challenged the list in the Allahabad High Court, a Single Judge quashed it, finding that candidates without a CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT (a recognized certifying institution) were not eligible for selection. This led to the termination of numerous candidates, prompting a series of appeals, eventually leading to the present Supreme Court intervention.
Key Legal Issues
1. Timing of Certificate Requirement: A core issue was whether candidates needed to possess the CCC certificate by the application deadline or merely by the interview date. The terminated candidates argued that their CCC certificates met the timing requirement as per UPPCL’s established guidelines, which allowed submission by the interview stage. However, UPPCL contended that the certificate must have been acquired by September 30, 2014, the application deadline.
2. Equivalence of Self-Certified Certificates: The Allahabad High Court’s Single Judge had earlier ruled that self-certified computer skills were inadequate unless verified by DOEACC/NIELIT. This created a separate eligibility concern, as UPPCL had previously accepted equivalent certifications, including those from private institutions.
3. Applicability of Article 142 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142, providing relief to the terminated candidates. This issue explored the Court’s capacity to intervene when procedural misinterpretations result in severe implications for individuals, even post-judgment.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Gavai, delivering the judgment, criticized the UPPCL’s inconsistent stance, noting that the Corporation had “grossly erred” in terminating candidates who presented valid CCC certificates by the interview date, as required by UPPCL’s own regulations. The Court clarified:
“The respondent-Corporation has misinterpreted the judgment of the learned Single Judge and terminated the services of the applicants who were otherwise entitled to be continued as per the judgment.”
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Single Judge’s ruling did not impact candidates who possessed valid CCC certificates from DOEACC/NIELIT. Instead, the order targeted candidates without CCC certification or its recognized equivalent, thereby protecting those with legitimate certifications.
Furthermore, the Court observed:
“If we fail to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142… it will be permitting continuation of illegality committed by the respondent-Corporation.”
This powerful invocation of Article 142 reflects the Court’s commitment to ensuring justice where misinterpretation of prior judgments could disrupt lives.
The Decision and its Implications
The Court’s order included several key directives:
– Reinstatement: Candidates in the July 14, 2015, selection list who held a CCC certificate by their interview date are to be reinstated immediately.
– Seniority and Benefits: Reinstated employees are entitled to continuity in seniority and service, including pay fixation and terminal benefits. However, no back wages will be awarded.
– Application of Article 142: The Court explicitly used its Article 142 powers to rectify UPPCL’s interpretation errors, a move reinforcing the judiciary’s role in correcting procedural injustices.
