Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from the selection and appointment to the post of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) in the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation. An advertisement dated 4th March 2011 invited applications for 2,974 posts, requiring candidates to possess a two-year National/State level professional certificate in Electrician Trade with High School and a Course on Computer Concept (CCC) certificate from DOEACC at the time of interview. 16,712 persons applied, 13,576 appeared in the written exam, 6,218 qualified, and 5,687 appeared for interviews. Many candidates could not produce the DOEACC certificate due to delays in issuance by DOEACC. The Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation granted two relaxations: first, allowing candidates to submit the certificate within three months (by 28th March 2012), and second, further extension till 31st July 2012. Results were declared on 21st May 2012. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the selections, arguing that relaxation changed the rules mid-way. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, relying on Rule 45 of the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995, which empowered the Chairman to relax rules. The Division Bench partly allowed the appeals, holding that candidates who submitted the certificate after 31st March 2012 were ineligible, but upheld the first relaxation (till 28th March 2012) in larger public interest. Aggrieved parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench's judgment, holding that relaxation without mention in the advertisement is impermissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as held in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan. However, the first relaxation was upheld in larger public interest because DOEACC did not issue certificates, and candidates could not be penalized for no fault of theirs. The second relaxation was rightly struck down. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Relaxation of Eligibility Condition - Power of relaxation must be mentioned in advertisement to ensure equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Relaxation without due publicity is impermissible (Paras 7-8). B) Service Law - Recruitment - Larger Public Interest - Relaxation can be upheld in larger public interest where candidates faced genuine difficulty due to non-issuance of certificates by the issuing authority - First relaxation (till 28.03.2012) upheld on this ground (Para 9). C) Service Law - Recruitment - Selection Process - Condition of submitting certificate at interview is mandatory - Candidates who submitted certificate after 31.03.2012 were rightly excluded by the High Court (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the relaxation of the condition requiring submission of DOEACC certificate at the time of interview, without mention in the advertisement, was valid, and whether the High Court correctly upheld the first relaxation but struck down the second.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Division Bench's judgment. The first relaxation (till 28.03.2012) was upheld in larger public interest, but the second relaxation (after 31.03.2012) was struck down. Candidates who submitted certificates after 31.03.2012 were excluded from the select list.
Law Points
- Relaxation of selection conditions without advertisement mention is impermissible
- Relaxation can be upheld in larger public interest for genuine problems
- Power of relaxation must be mentioned in advertisement
- Equality under Articles 14 and 16 requires due publicity of relaxation
