NDLI: Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Equivalence of Recruitment Mandatory qualification Service Law
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Service Law – Recruitment – Mandatory qualification – Equivalence of – Requirement, if fulfilled – Duty of recruiting authority/employer to verify – 1995 Regulations provided for recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-II – Recruitment to the said posts conducted by respondents-Uttar Pradesh Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow – In 2011, the Corporation substituted the computer qualification prescribed earlier with “Certificate of 80 Hours Course on Computer Concept (CCC) issued by DOEACC”[Department of Electronics Accreditation Computer Courses now taken over by National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT)]– In 2013, this qualification was substituted with CCC Certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate – 2014 advertisement issued by Commission wherein inter alia CCC Certificate or its equivalent computer qualification was one of the compulsory qualifications – Select list dated. 14.07.2015 published – Persons not included in the list, filed writ petitions – Single Judge by judgment dated. 07.10.2017 quashed the list insofar it included candidates who did not hold CCC certificate by NIELIT – List revised, and the names of such candidates were deleted – Writ Petition filed challenging the order deleting name – Dismissed – Special Appeal dismissed by division bench – Candidates having CCC certificate or equivalent thereto were included in the select list (the appellants in C.A.No. 9026/19 & 9027/19), issued appointment orders and are working as on date – Division Bench in Special Appeal No.585/2018, set aside the judgment dated. 07.10.2017 and dismissed all the writ petitions – Held: In the earlier recruitment held in 2011 only CCC certificate issued by DOEACC was part of mandatory qualification– It was for the 2014 recruitment that CCC certificate or equivalent computer qualification was provided for– CCC certificate is a well- known certificate issued under the aegis of the Government of India and have been made part of essential qualifications for different posts throughout the country – No material to indicate that CCC certificate is also granted by any other body or authority – Thus, CCC certificate mentioned in the 2014 advertisement was CCC certificate as granted by NIELIT/DOEACC – Further, the advertisement in the present case neither envisaged nor permitted the candidates to give any self-certification or self-declaration that their computer qualification is equivalent to CCC – Equivalence of qualification claimed by candidates is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer, which was not undertaken in the present case, and cannot be left to candidates by their selfdeclaration – Thus, self-certification by the candidates of their computer qualification was not sufficient to treat them having passed the required qualification – Also, deletion of names of certain candidates from the select list was upheld by an earlier Division Bench – However, Division Bench in the impugned judgment without adverting to the same restored the select list, which was in existence on 14.07.2015, thus, the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained – Further, the judgment of Single Judge also cannot be faulted on the ground that all the selected candidates were not impleaded in the writ petitions challenging the select list dated. 14.07.2015 – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside, while that of the Single Judge dated. 07.10.2017 is restored – Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board of Operational Employees Category Service Regulations, 1995 – Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Act, 1948 – Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 – Constitution of India – Art. 16.Practice & Procedure – Writ petition – Impleadment – Recruitment for Technician Grade-II under the 1995 Regulations – Mandatory qualification envisaged in the advertisement – Large number of candidates claiming qualification equivalent to the mandatory qualification were included without any scrutiny – Challenge to – Plea that non impleadment of each and every candidate in the select list is breach of principles of natural justice – Held: When the inclusion in the select list of large number of candidates is on the basis of an arbitrary/illegal process, the aggrieved parties can complain – In such cases necessity of impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted – In the present case, when select list contained names of 2211 candidates, it becomes unnecessary to implead every candidate in view of the nature of the challenge – Moreover, few selected candidates were impleaded in the writ petitions in representative capacity – Principle of natural justice. Words & Expressions – “equivalent”, “self-attestation” – Meaning of – Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1380
Petitioner	Mukul Kumar Tyagi
Respondent	The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.
SCR	[2019] 16 S.C.R. 1145
Judgement Date	2019-12-16
Case Number	9026

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors

Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors. Vs. Aarya K. Babu & Anr.

The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors

Devender Bhaskar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Mukul Saikia & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.

Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Etc.

Ashish Kumar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors

Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors. Vs. Aarya K. Babu & Anr.

The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors

Devender Bhaskar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Mukul Saikia & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.

Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Etc.

Ashish Kumar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.