Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court was seized of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by unsuccessful candidates challenging a selection process for 2974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The dispute arose from an advertisement dated 04.03.2011, which prescribed eligibility criteria including a two-year National/State-level Trade certificate in Electrician Trade, High School with Science and Mathematics, and a DOEACC Certificate to be produced at the time of interview. Written examination was held on 07.08.2011, interviews between 28.11.2011 and 28.12.2011, and result declared on 21.05.2012. Many selected candidates could not produce DOEACC certificates during interview, prompting UPPCL to extend the deadline to 31.07.2012. Unsuccessful candidates approached the Allahabad High Court; a Single Judge dismissed their petitions on 30.08.2012, but a Division Bench on 26.09.2012 held that relaxation was impermissible where the advertisement did not provide for it and directed deletion of candidates who submitted certificates after 31.03.2012. In compliance, UPPCL issued a revised result on 20.01.2013 and an appointment-cum-allotment list on 30.01.2013. The present writ petition, filed on 19.02.2013, was tagged with special leave petitions challenging the Division Bench order. By order dated 14.08.2018, the Supreme Court noted that only about 1509 candidates possessed DOEACC certificates by 31.03.2012 while 2800 were declared successful and directed UPPCL to file a list of certificate submission dates; the list was filed on 23.10.2018. Order dated 30.01.2019 directed UPPCL to file counter affidavit explaining marks and ranking of petitioners if they claimed higher merit. In Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 17 SCC 373, this Court upheld the Division Bench and dismissed the special leave petitions. Petitioners argued that subsequent extensions were unauthorized, OBC selection exceeded reservation limits, the select list contained mismatches, and some below cut-off candidates were appointed; they sought quashing and CBI investigation. Respondents contended that petitioners suppressed an earlier writ petition filed by petitioner nos. 8 to 18, did not implead necessary parties, and could not compare merits across different categories; petitioners scored below the general category cut-off of 98.25. The Court recorded that petitioners had confined relief to higher merit before an earlier Bench and that no discrepancies were urged after the list was filed. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief in the writ petition for the reasons recorded. The final operative order dismissing the petition was not included in the provided text, but the Court's view was clear that no relief could be granted.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Suppression of Material Facts and Non-joinder - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - Petitioners 8 to 18 had earlier filed W.P. No. 2749 of 2012 before Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court seeking identical relief, which was disposed of on 09.11.2012 in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 26.09.2012; this fact was not disclosed, and selected candidates were not impleaded - Held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on grounds of suppression and non-joinder of necessary parties (Paras 12, 15). B) Service Law - Eligibility Conditions - Relaxation of Advertised Requirements - Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited recruitment rules and Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - UPPCL initially required DOEACC certificates to be produced at interview but extended deadline multiple times to 31.07.2012; Division Bench held relaxation impermissible because advertisement made no provision for it and limited valid certificates to those submitted before 31.03.2012; Supreme Court in Sanjay K. Dixit upheld this view - Held that eligibility conditions in an advertisement cannot be relaxed beyond express terms; fresh select list prepared in compliance (Paras 3-5, 9). C) Reservation Law - Open Category Merit Exception - Reserved Category Candidates Scoring Above General Cut-off - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 16(4) and related judicial precedents - Petitioners alleged that 1527 OBC candidates selected against 715 reserved posts violated 50% ceiling; respondents argued that OBC candidates scoring above last general category candidate are selected as open category and not counted for reservation - Held that selection of meritorious reserved category candidates in open category does not violate reservation policy (Paras 10, 13). D) Service Law - Merit Comparison Across Horizontal Categories - Distinct Cut-off Marks - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - Petitioners, general category candidates with cut-off of 98.25 marks, could not compare their claim with dependants of freedom fighters (65.75) and ex-servicemen (80.25) who belonged to horizontal sub-categories; petitioners had scored below 98.25 and were not selected - Held that comparison across different horizontal reservation categories with different cut-offs is impermissible (Paras 12, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revised result dated 20.01.2013 and appointment-cum-allotment list dated 30.01.2013 for Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical posts should be quashed on grounds of unauthorized extension of DOEACC certificate submission deadline, violation of reservation policy, appointment of below cut-off candidates, and alleged manipulation; whether the writ petition was maintainable due to suppression of earlier litigation and non-joinder; whether CBI investigation should be ordered.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief in this writ petition for the reasons recorded. The final operative order dismissing the petition was not explicitly included in the provided text, but the Court's view was clear that no relief could be granted.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is discretionary and not available to re-agitate decided or suppressed issues
- eligibility conditions advertised cannot be relaxed in absence of provision
- reserved category candidates securing higher marks than last general candidate are treated as open category and not counted against reservation quota
- comparison of merit across different horizontal categories with distinct cut-offs is impermissible.
