Allahabad High Court
Prashant Kumar Jaiswal And 12 ... vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others on 7 October, 2017
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved on 5.9.2017
Delivered on 7.10.2017
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41750 of 2015
Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Jaiswal And 12 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Anand Swaroop Dubey,Ashok Khare,Devendra Saini
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Anadi Krishna Narayan,Ayank Mishra,Ghazala Bano Quadari,H.R. Mishra,J.P. Pandey,Pankaj Shukla,Shiv Kumar Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46900 of 2015
Petitioner :- Madan Mohan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Raj
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43430 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sabhapati Prajapati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,S,A.Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40573 of 2017
Petitioner :- Subhash Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 16 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Poojan Yadav,Puneet Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.P. Pandey,Ramendra Pratap Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51624 of 2015
Petitioner :- Onkar Upadhyay & 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Purushottam Upadhyaya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49077 of 2015
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar And 115 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.P. Tripathi,Jaswant Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Nand Krishna Narayana
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46469 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ratan Kumar And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61597 of 2015
Petitioner :- Rohit Tiwari & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 64264 of 2015
Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Verma And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Nath Singh,Nar Singh Narayan Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13969 of 2016
Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Gupta And 27 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Saurabh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 62926 of 2015
Petitioner :- Birendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jayant Prakash Singh,Mahboob Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4951 of 2016
Petitioner :- Yash Pal And 9 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh,Baij Nath Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Saurabh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15966 of 2016
Petitioner :- Brajesh Kumar Singh And 34 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7908 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sonu Chaurasia
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yusuf Ali,Jitendra Kumar Chakrabort
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16043 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ramakant And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Singh,Arun Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Saurabh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7482 of 2016
Petitioner :- Son Prakash Saraswat And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha,Mahima Maurya Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A K Mishra,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8203 of 2016
Petitioner :- Chandra Dev And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4261 of 2016
Petitioner :- Bhupendra Kumar And 38 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidyapati Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6218 of 2016
Petitioner :- Saurabh Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Saurabh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16926 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Singh And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19151 of 2016
Petitioner :- Vijay Pratap And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19393 of 2016
Petitioner :- Nirdosh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamil Ahamad Azmi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19087 of 2016
Petitioner :- Opender Kumar And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Abhishek Kumar Srivastava,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Ajai Kumar Pathak,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Mahboob Ahmad
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19083 of 2016
Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shesh Narain Mishra,Ram Milan Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1973 of 2016
Petitioner :- Shivaranjan Yadava And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manik Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17441 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Yadav And 12 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2861 of 2016
Petitioner :- Mohammad Firoz
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Zafar Abbas
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20356 of 2016
Petitioner :- Shiv Pratap Singh @ Shiv Pratap
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anita Singh,Girish Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20630 of 2016
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Purushottam Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26916 of 2016
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20049 of 2016
Petitioner :- Dushyant Kumar And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Mishra,A. Mishra,Abhinav Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32169 of 2016
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Secy. And 9 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey,Syed Ahmed Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32626 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sanjay And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar,Ajai Kumar Singh Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32844 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ram Bahadur Yadav And 19 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Faizan Ahamad
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33601 of 2016
Petitioner :- Anupam Nimbekar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhijeet Singh,Abhijat Awasthi,Rajan Babu
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Syed Faizan Ahamad
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34288 of 2016
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Sharma And 16 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh,Baij Nath Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34581 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sant Prasad Tiwari And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey,Syed Faizan Ahmad
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33943 of 2016
Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Dwivedi,Gulab Chand Bharati
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35649 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chand Bharati
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Syed Ahmad Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35516 of 2016
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Pratik Chandra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37935 of 2016
Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Pratik Chandra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10292 of 2016
Petitioner :- Umakar Yadav And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38053 of 2016
Petitioner :- Deep Kamal And 5 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Pradeep Chandra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 64805 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,V.D. Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Varun Dev Sharma
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39578 of 2016
Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Jaiswal,Ashok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9495 of 2016
Petitioner :- Naveen Chaudhary And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Singh,Arun Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Saurabh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35782 of 2016
Petitioner :- Bharat Prakash Sharma And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45563 of 2016
Petitioner :- Shivaji Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Othrs.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Ram Prasad Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Syad Ahmad Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46074 of 2016
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Triloki Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48486 of 2016
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Syad Ahamad Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38547 of 2016
Petitioner :- Praveen Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Balbir Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Pradeep Chandra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 58920 of 2016
Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey,S.A.Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1578 of 2017
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh And 6 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suhel Ahmad Azmi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,S.A.Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3079 of 2017
Petitioner :- Vimlesh Kumar Gupta And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Othrs.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Afzal Ansari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Syed Ahmed Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5570 of 2017
Petitioner :- Gaurav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5528 of 2017
Petitioner :- Pravin Kumar And 10 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deshraj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39114 of 2016
Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Pundir,Rekha Pundir
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Pradeep Chandra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43616 of 2016
Petitioner :- Lal Chandra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harendra Prakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,S.A.Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44275 of 2016
Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahavir Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Pradeep Chandra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46410 of 2016
Petitioner :- Shubh Narayan And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Triloki Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Pradeep Chandra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7580 of 2017
Petitioner :- Jitendra Maurya And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Syed Ahmed Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8776 of 2017
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Syed Ahmed Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11643 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Chaubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,S.A.Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11808 of 2017
Petitioner :- Narendra Singh Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar,Ajai Kumar Singh Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Mahboob Ahmad,Syed Ahmed Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11970 of 2017
Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Saini
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Syed Ahmed Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12194 of 2017
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,J.P. Pandey,Syed Ahmed Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12522 of 2017
Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Gupta,Haidar Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14991 of 2017
Petitioner :- Gaurav Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushlesh Tripathi,Shashwat Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18820 of 2017
Petitioner :- Mahee Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shekhar Chaudhary,Vishal Kashyap
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Rahul Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 64374 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra And 33 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidyapati Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43430 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sabhapati Prajapati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,S,A.Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25718 of 2017
Petitioner :- Rahul Yadav And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Juned Alam
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29901 of 2017
Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta And 6 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Shiv Poojan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.P. Pandey,Kapil Dev Singh Rathore
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27948 of 2017
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mool Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,S.A.Faizan
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18122 of 2017
Petitioner :- Brijbhan Lal And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,J P Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18129 of 2017
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav And 25 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobhit Dubey,Shashi Nandan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50415 of 2016
Petitioner :- Diwakar And 9 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Yadav,Subhash Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19696 of 2017
Petitioner :- Sanjay Gupta And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Pal,Om Prakash Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,S.F.Ahmad
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20534 of 2017
Petitioner :- Rakesh Upadhyaya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsels and Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.P. Pandey who appeared for the Electricity Service Commission ("the Commission") and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, who has appeared for the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd ("the Corporation").
A. PROLOGUE
This batch of writ petitions assails a selection undertaken by the Commission for appointment to the post of Technician Grade II (Training Electrical). The two advertisements which form subject matter of the issues raised herein are dated 6 September 2014 and 24 April 2015. These advertisements invited applications for appointment against 2211 and 884 posts respectively of Technician Grade II.
With the consent of parties Writ-A No. 41750 of 2015 and Writ A No. 64805 of 2015 were treated as the lead writ petitions. The first writ petition seeks quashing of the select list dated 14 July 2015 and further seeks the revision of the select list after excluding therefrom candidates who had obtained computer eligibility certificates on dates subsequent to 30 September 2014 as also those candidates who did not possess the "Course on Computer Concepts" ("CCC") certificate as awarded by DOEACC society since renamed as the "National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology" ("NEILIT"). By an amendment a further challenge was laid to the decision of the Board of Directors taken in a meeting held on 23 November 2015. It is relevant to note here that the relief with respect to the ineligibility of candidates who obtained certificates on dates subsequent to 30 September 2014 was not pressed. The second writ petition came to be preferred immediately upon the issuance of the second advertisement and challenges the proceedings taken in respect of the same. The petitions have arrayed various selected candidates in representative capacity. Although the said candidates were represented by counsels, none appeared or advanced submissions on their behalf. On behalf of some of the selected candidates, Sri Nandan alone has appeared in Writ-A No. 18129 of 2017.
The primary ground of challenge which was urged by Sri Khare and other counsels appearing for the non selected candidates revolves around the acceptance of certificates evidencing basic computer knowledge having been acquired by the holders thereof from unrecognised institutions. The issue itself arises out of a stipulation in the advertisement which required the applicants to necessarily hold a CCC certificate or one equivalent thereto. The challenge which was addressed before the Court was that the CCC certificate is granted only by NIELIT and that none of the certificates granted or issued by private and unrecognised institutions can be treated as equivalent thereto.
When the first writ petition was initially entertained on 31 July 2015, a learned Single Judge while entertaining the challenge to the select list had recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that no final decision will be taken pursuant to the impugned select list. It however transpires (and is so alleged by the petitioners) that in spite of the interim order, the respondents proceeded to affect appointments of candidates included in the impugned select list which fact was also noticed in the order of the Court dated 6 August 2015. The statement of the learned counsel for the respondents recorded in the order of the Court dated 31 July 2015, described in subsequent orders as the "interim order" was continued from time to time. On 12 August 2016 a detailed order was passed by a learned Single Judge noting the contention of the petitioners that various candidates had come to be selected under the garb of having an equivalent computer qualification even though they did not hold the CCC certificate as granted by NIELIT. The Court also noticed the submission that the respondents had failed to undertake any exercise for ascertaining the genuineness or authenticity of the certificates. It further noted the contention of the petitioners that no exercise was undertaken to ascertain whether these certificates had come to be issued after the imparting of instructions in computer education in accordance with standards fixed by NIELIT. Upon passing of this order, the respondents have filed a supplementary affidavit which shall be referred to in the course of this judgment. While Writ-A No. 41750 of 2015 impugns the select list prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 6 September 2014, Writ-A No. 64805 of 2015 sought quashing of the subsequent advertisement dated 24 April 2015 as also the subsequent select list prepared pursuant to the said advertisement and dated 16 November 2015. On this petition, on 1 February 2016 a learned Single Judge provided that parties would maintain status quo with regard to the selection. On 17 February 2016 the Court further provided that all appointments made by the respondent Corporation shall abide by the final decision of the writ petition.
Before noticing the rival contentions it would be apposite to refer to the following sequence of events:
B. RELEVANT DATES
Sl.
Dates
Sequence of Events.
1.
9 August 1995
In exercise of powers conferred by Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board promulgated the U.P. Electricity Board Operational Employees Category Service Regulations 1995.
Note:
(i) The post of Technician Grade II was prescribed to be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with a selection process to be undertaken by the Commission.
(ii) The Schedule to the Regulations set out the educational qualifications which were required to be held by candidates seeking appointments on the said post. This however, did not mandate or prescribe any certificate in respect of computer literacy or education.
2.
14 January 2000
The U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 is promulgated and results in the constitution of the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission. This first legislative step initiated by the State Government for reforming the electricity sector also provided for the creation of the Corporation.
Notes:
(i) In terms of Section 23, a Transfer Scheme was envisaged to be framed and prepared pursuant to which all interests, rights and liabilities of the erstwhile Board were to vest in the State Government.
(ii) Simultaneous to the promulgation of the Transfer Scheme, the interests, rights and liabilities which had come to vest in the State Government were to be re-vested in the Corporation and other generating companies.
(iii) Section 23 (3) provided that consequent to the creation of the Corporation, the rights and powers exercisable by the Board under the 1948 Act would now be exercised by the Corporation.
(iv) This legislative measure also provided for the transfer of existing employees and also saved as well as preserved the terms and conditions of service of such personnel.
(v) In terms of Section 54(3) upon establishment of the Commission, it stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile Board for the purposes of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the 1948 Act.
14 January 2000
The U.P. Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme 2000 is promulgated and comes into effect. In terms of clause 3 all properties of the erstwhile Board stood vested in the State Government. The Scheme further provided for a re-vesting of interests, rights and liabilities between three newly created undertakings including the Corporation described as the "Transferees". Clause 6 provided for transfer of personnel and absorption of existing employees.
Note:
(i) Clause 6(10) provided that the Transferee would frame regulations governing the conditions of service of personnel transferred to it and further clarified that till such time as these regulations are framed the existing service conditions of the Board would continue to apply.
4.
30 February 2000
The Corporation in terms of clause 6(b) of the Transfer Scheme adopts all existing rules, regulations governing the terms and conditions of service of employees including the 1995 Regulations as well as the Electricity Service Commission, U.P. State Electricity Board (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1978.
6.
29 January 2011
The Board of the Corporation issues an office order prescribing that all incumbents seeking selection to the post of Technician Grade II would be liable to hold a CCC certificate issued by DOEACC society. This order prescribed the same to be an essential qualification.
7.
25 November 2011
An Office Memorandum is issued providing that an equivalent computer eligibility qualification could also be accepted.
8.
5 July 2013
An Office Order is issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation again amending the essential qualifications in respect of knowledge in computers by providing that an aspiring candidate may hold either a CCC certificate or a computer eligibility qualification equivalent thereto. This order is issued in anticipation of formal approval being accorded to the decision by the Board. The words "DOEACC" are effectively deleted.
6 September 2014
The first advertisement is issued setting in motion the process for filling up 2211 posts.
8 November 2014
Written examination is conducted.
December 2014
Interviews are conducted by the Commission.
12.
24 April 2015
The second advertisement is issued by the Commission seeking to fill up 884 posts of Technicians Grade II.
14 July 2015
The final select list prepared pursuant to the first advertisement is published.
31 July 2015
On Writ-A No. 41750 of 2015, the Court records the statement of the counsel for the Corporation that no final decision will be taken in pursuance of the impugned select list.
8 September 2015
In a meeting of the Board of Directors the eligibility qualification in respect of computer knowledge is again amended requiring candidates to hold CCC certificate/O Level /A Level/ B Level/ C Level certificates issued by DOEACC/NIELIT .
16 November 2015
The results of the written examinations conducted pursuant to the second advertisement is declared.
23 November 2015
The Board grants ex post facto sanction to the office order dated 5 July 2013 which had prescribed that a qualification equivalent to CCC would also be accepted.
1 February 2016
An interim order is passed on Writ-A No. 64805 of 2015 requiring parties to maintain status quo.
17 February 2016
The Court clarifies in Writ A No. 64804 of 2015 that all appointments that may be made shall abide by the final decision of the writ petition.
In order to appreciate the rival submissions which are noticed herein after, it would be relevant to place on the record the relevant rules/regulations/orders in the backdrop of which the issues canvassed would merit consideration.
C. RELEVANT STATUTES AND ORDERS
The power to frame appropriate regulations governing the terms and conditions of service of officers and employees is traceable to section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 19481 which reads thus:-
"79. Power to make regulations - The Board may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely -
(a) the administration of the funds and other property of the Board, and the maintenance of its accounts;
(b) the summoning and holding of meetings of the Board, the times and places at which such meetings shall be held, the conduct of business thereat and the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum;
(c) the duties of officers and other employees] of the Board, and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service......"
The constitution of the Commission is referable to section 3 of the Electricity Service Commission Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 19782 which reads thus:-
CHAPTER II - PART I
"3. Constitution of Electricity Service Commission ( fo|qr lsok vk;ksx).- (1) The Board shall constitute an Electricity Service Commission ( fo|qr lsok vk;ksx), to be called the "Electricity Service Commission ( fo|qr lsok vk;ksx), Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board" for advising on matters relating to recruitment to, and conditions of service of persons appointed to the posts and services under the U.P. State Electricity Board, as may be specified from time to time."
The salient function entrusted to the Commission which is of selection and framing of recommendations for appointment is also noticed in the 1978 Regulations and reads thus:-
PART - VI
"30. Examinations and conduct of Examination - (i) The Commission shall conduct examinations for the various posts to be filled by competitive examinations.
(ii) The examination may be held at one or more centres at any place or places in Uttar Pradesh as the Commission may decide. The Commission shall appoint an incharge for each centre who shall be responsible for conduct of examination at his centre.
(iii) The Commission may hold combined competitive examinations for selection to various posts under the purview of the Commission."
As noticed above, with the promulgation of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, the Board ceased to exist and stood replaced by the Corporation. The power to regulate the terms and conditions of service also stood transferred and vested in the Corporation. Simultaneous to the promulgation of the 1999 Act, the U.P. Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000 also came to be published and the powers transferred and vested in the Board stood enumerated in terms of Clause 6 of the Scheme in the following terms:
"6. Transfer of Personnel.-
...........
"(10) Subject to the provisions of the Act and this Scheme, the Transferee shall frame regulations governing the conditions of service of personnel transferred to the transferee under this Scheme and till such time, the existing service conditions of the Board shall mutatis mutandis apply.
(11) In respect of the statutory and other schemes and employment related matters including the provident fund, gratuity fund, pension and any other superannuation fund or any other special fund created or existing for the benefit of the personnel, the relevant Transferee shall stand substituted for the Board for all purposes and all the rights, powers and obligations of the Board in relation to any and all such matters shall become those of the Transferee concerned and the services of the personnel shall be treated as having been continuous for the purpose of the application of this sub-clause."
On 30 February 2000, the Board of the Corporation adopted the various rules and regulations then prevalent and applicable to the employees of the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board as would be evident from the following order.
mRrj izns'k ikoj dkiksZjs'ku] fyfeVsM
"'kfDr enZu"] 14 v'kksd ekxZ] लखनऊ
la- 4&fofu;e&[email protected],[email protected]&1&jsxqys'ku&2000 fnukad% Qjojh 30] 2000
dk;kZy; Kki
m0iz0 'kklu }kjk fnukad 7-7-99 dks vf/klwfpr m-iz- fo|qr lq/kkj vf/kfu;e] 1999 dh /kkjk 1 dh mi/kkjk (3) ds v/khu 14-1-2000 ls m0iz0 'kklu] mtkZ foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k& 148&ih&[email protected] fnukad 14-1-2000 ls mDr vf/kfu;e izo`Rr gks x;k gSA rnuqlkj vf/klwpuk la[;k &149&ih&[email protected]&24 fnukad 14-1-2000 ls m0iz0 fo|qr lq/kkj vUrj.k Ldhe ykxw gks x;h gSaA bl vUrj.k Ldhe dh /kkjk 6 (10) esa fuEufyf[kr izko/kku fd;k x;k gSa%&
"Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, the transferee shall frame regulations governing the conditions of service of personal transferred to the transferee under this Scheme and till such time, the existing service conditions of the Board shall mutatis mutandis apply."
mDr izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqikyu esa ;g vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd m0iz0 ikoj dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk vius vf/kdkfj;[email protected];ksa ds lsok 'krZas lEcU/kh ekeyksa ds fuLrkj.k ds lEcU/k esa fofu;e cuk;s tkus rFkk m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद }kjk vius vf/kdkfj;[email protected];ksa ds lsok lEcU/kh ekeyksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq iwoZ esa cuk;s x;s fuEufyf[kr fofu;e ( v|ru la'kksf/kr) iwoZ rn~rlEcU/kh tkjh iz'kklfud vkns'k dkiksZjs'ku ds vf/kdkfj;[email protected];ksa ds lsok lEcU/kh ekeyksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vko';d ifjoRkZuksa lfgr (Mutatis Mutandis) mu ij ykxw ekus tk;saxs %&
(1) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] vfHk;Urk lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1970
(2) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] lgk;d vfHk;Urk (tkuin) lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1970
(3) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] voj vfHk;Urk lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1972
(4) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] jlk;uK lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1970
(5) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] fyfidh; vf/kष्Bku ( eq[; vf/k;ark ds dk;kZy; ,oa vU; v/khuLFk dk;ksZy;) lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1970
(6) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] ys[kkf/kdkjh lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1984
(7) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] vfHk;Urkvksa dh ,dhdj.k ,oa ज्येष्ठता lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1976
(8) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] ( vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dh) ( lsok dh 'krZs) fofu;e & 1975
(9) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] yksd lsok vf/kdj.k fofu;e
(10) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] (deZpkfj;ksa ,oa vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fRr) fofu;e & 1975
(11) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद eq[;ky; ( r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh) ( vuq'kklukRed 'kfDr;ksa dk izfrfu/kk;u) fofu;e & 1987
(12) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] (परिषद ds lsodksa dk 'kklu o lkoZtfud midzeksa esa lafofy;u) lsok fofu;e & 1987
(13) Vz~kUlQj vkWQ cksbZl bEIykbZ vaM lfoZl jsxqys'kUl
(14) isesaV vkQ lfCllVsUl ,ykmUl bEiykbZ vku lLisa'ku jsxqys'ku
(15) odkyrukek vf/kopu] 'kiFk i= gLrk{kj ;k Lr;kiu rFkk परिषद }kjk ;k परिषद ds fo:} fof/kd eqdnneksa ds nk;j djus ds lEcU/k esa vko';d dk;Zokgh ,oa vkns'k fuxZr djus ds lEcU/k esa fofu;e
(16) m0iz0 'kkldh; deZpkjh vkpj.k lsok fu;ekoyh & 1956 ( परिषद }kjk vf/kd`r )
(17) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद bEiykbt (ट्रांसफर jsxqys'kUl) & 1980
(18) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद] (Hkwfe v/;kfIr ls izHkkfor ifjokj ds lnL; dh fu;qfDr) fofu;e & 1987
(19) fMVjfeus'ku vkWQ MsV vkWQ cFkZ :Yl & 1974
(20) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद lsokdky esa e`r ifjषnh; lsodksa ds vfJrksa dh HkrhZ fu;ekoyh & 1975
(21) lh0lh0,0 :Yl (,MksIVsM ckb n cksMZ)
(22) Vz~sofyax ,ykmUl :Yl ,.M :Yl fjysfVax Vq esfMdy QsflfyVht ,Mfelafcy vq n cksbZl bEIykWbt
(23) isa'kujh :Yl (,MksIVsM ckb n cksMZ)
(24) th0ih0 :Yl (,MksIVsM ckbZ n cksMZ)
(25) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद eq[;ky; fyfidh; deZpkjh lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1969
(26) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद ifjpkydh; lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1995
(27) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद (परिषद ds deZpkfj;ksa dk LFkk;hdj.k) fofu;e & 1995
(28) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद ज्येष्ठता fofu;ekoyh & 1998
(29) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1998
(30) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद dkfeZd vf/kdkjh lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1995
(31) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद esa p;u वर्ष fu/kkZj.k fofu;ekoyh & 1998
(32) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद fpfdRlkf/kdkjh lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1994
(33) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद ioZrh; milaoxZ fofu;ekoyh & 1994
(34) m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr परिषद f'k{kd lsok fofu;ekoyh & 1995
(35) n इलेक्ट्रिसिटी lfoZl dfe'ku (fo|qr lsok vk;ksx) m0iz0 LVsV इलेक्ट्रिसिटी cksMZ (izkslhtj ,.M dUMsDV vkWQ fctusl) jsxqys'ku & 1978
(36) n इलेक्ट्रिसिटी lfoZl dfe'ku (fo|qr lsok vk;ksx) m0iz0 LVsV इलेक्ट्रिसिटी cksMZ (fyfeVs'ku vkWQ QD'ku~) jsxqys'ku & 1978
(37) n इलेक्ट्रिसिटी lfoZl dfe'ku (fo|qr lsok vk;ksx) m0iz0 LVsV इलेक्ट्रिसिटी cksMZ (dafM'ku vkWQ lfoZl) jsxqys'ku & 1978
mDr vkns'k m0iz0 ikoj dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds xBu dh frfFk ls ykxw gksaxsA
v/;{k ,oa izcU/k funs'kd
izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq प्रेषित %&
1& leLr eq[; vf/k;ark] m0iz0 ikoj dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsMA
2& egk izcU/kd] [email protected]{[email protected]@[email protected] rki fo/kqr x`gA
3& egkizcU/kd] [email protected]] m0 iz0 ikoj dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsMA
4& egkizcU/kd] ty fo|qr ifj;kstuk;sa] nsgjknwjA
5& eq[; vfHk;ark (forj.k) m0iz0 ikoj dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] e/;kapy&y[[email protected]'p;kapy&esjB] iwokZapy&[email protected]] nsgjknwuA
6& leLr eq[; {ks=h; vfHk;ark] m0iz0 ikoj dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsMA
7& eq[; ys[kkf/[email protected][kkf/kdkjh osru ,oa ys[kk 'kfDr Hkou foLrkj] लखनऊA
vkKk ls]
(Hkou pUnz ik.Ms)
funs'kd (dkfeZd ,oa izcU/ku)"
A perusal of the aforesaid order would establish that the Corporation adopted both the 1995 and 1978 Regulations which have been referred to above. It becomes relevant to note here that the 1995 Regulations did not prescribe a qualification in respect of knowledge in computing. The controversy has itself arisen primarily on account of the orders passed with respect to computer qualifications issued thereafter. The first order which was passed prescribing qualifications in computers read thus:-
m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
(m0iz0 ljdkj dk midze)
U.P. Power Corporation Limited
(Govt. of Uttar Pradesh Undertaking)
'kfDr Hkou foLrkj] 14&v'kksd ekXkZ] लखनऊ&226001
"la[;k% 6& fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@11&4&fofu;[email protected] fnukad% 29 tuojh] 2011
dk;kZy; Kki
m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn ifjpkydh; deZpkjh oxZ lsok fofu;ekoyh] 1995 (;Fkk la'kksf/kr); tks fd lEizfr m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM esa Hkh izHkkoh ,oa ykxw gS ds ifjf'k"V% (d) ds Js.kh i&4 ds izLrj (4) ;kafU=d laoxZ esa bafxr rduhf'k;u xzsM&2 ds in ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq dkjiksjs'ku ds dk;kZy; Kki la[;k&118 &fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@10&4&fofu;[email protected]] fnukad% 24 fnlEcj] 2010 }kjk vfuok;Z dh x;h dEI;wVj vgZrk "m0iz0 ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr dEI;wVj laLFkku ls Windows ij dk;Z djus lEcU/kh rhu ekg dk izek.k i=" ds LFkku ij ,rn~}kjk "DOEACC }kjk iznRr 80 ?k.Vs dk Course on Computer Concept (CCC) dk izek.k i= fd;k tkrk gS] ftls lk{kkRdkj ds le; izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA"
2- mijksDr vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksaxsaA
3- laxr fofu;ekoyh ds vU; izkfo/kku ;Fkk la'kksf/kr ykxw jgsaxsaA
funs'kd e.My dh vkKk ls]
v/;{k ,oa izcU/k funs'kd
la[;k% 6 (1) fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@11&rn~fnukad% [email protected]@2011"
This order was followed by another order dated 25 November 2011 which was in the following terms:-
"m0iz0 ikoj dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
(m0iz0 ljdkj dk midze)
'kfDr Hkou] 14&v'kksd ekxZ]लखनऊ
लखनऊ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
la[;k% 147(1) &fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011&9 fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh fnukad% 25 uoEcj 2011
dk;kZy; Kki
m0iz0 ikoj dkWjiksjs'ku fy0 ds funs'kd e.My }kjk fnukad 12&10&2011 dks lEiUu gqbZ viuh 87okWa ds en la[;k&lRrklh (54)@20 ij dkjiksjs'ku ds dk;kZy; Kki la0 34&fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011&9 fofu;[email protected] Vhlh fnukad% 24&06&2011 dk dk;ksZRrj vuqeksnu iznku fd;k x;kA lkFk gh en la[;k&[email protected]@2011 ij mDr dk;kZy; Kki esa izkfo/kkfur vks ysoy dEI;wVj vgZrk ds LFkku ij vks ysoy vFkok led{k ,d o"khZ; vbZlk izfrLFkkfir fd;k tkuk Hkh vuqeksfnr fd;kA
2- funs'kd e.My ds dk;ksZRrj vuqeksnu dh izR;k'kk esa dkjiksjs'ku ds dk;kZy; Kki la0&21& fofu;e ,oa vkSj ikfdy 2011&9 fofu;[email protected] Vhlh fnukad 09&05&2011 ds LrEHk&02 esa izkfo/kkfur DOEACC ds vks ysoy dEI;wVj izek.k&i= ds LFkku ij vks ysoy vFkok led{k ,d o"khZ; vgZrk RkFkk DOEACC ds vks ysoy ds LFkku ij ccc izek.k i= vFkok led+{k dEI;wVj vgZrk ,rn~}kjk izfrLFkkfir dh x;h gSA
3. dk;kZy; Kki la0&21&fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011&9 fofu;[email protected] Vhlh fnukad 09&05&2011 v/khd`r dk;kZy; Kki la0&34&fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011&09&fofu;[email protected] fnukad 24&06&2011 ds vU; izkfo/kku ;Fkkor ykxw jgsaxsA
funs'kd (dk0iz0 ,oa iz'kk0)
la[;k% 147(1) &fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011 rn~fnukad"
Then came the order of 5 July 2013 which formed the major bone of contention inter partes and for the sake of convenience is extracted herein below:-
"m0iz0 ikoj dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
(m0iz0 ljdkj dk midze)
'kfDr Hkou] 14&v'kksd ekxZ]
लखनऊ
( flu ua0& U32201UP1999SGC024928)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
la[;k%& 20&fofu;[email protected]@13&09&fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh0 fnukaWd% 5 tqykbZ] 2013
dk;kZy; Kki
mRrj izns'k ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds ,d gh dk;kZy; Kki la0&147&fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011&09&fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh0 fnukad 25&11&2011 }kjk nks vkns'kksa ds fuxZr gks tkus ds dkj.k mRiUu gqbZ Hkze dh fLFkfr ds lek/kku gsrq funs'kd e.My ds dk;ksZRrj vuqeksnu dh izR;k'kk esa mDr nksuksa vkns'kksa dks muds fuxZeu dh frfFk (25&11&2011) ls gh fujLr djrs gq, muds LFkku ij mDr frfFk (25&11&2011) ls gh fuEuor~ vkns'k izHkkoh fd;s tkrs gSa%&
(v) m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fy0 ds funs'kd e.My ds dk;ksZRrj vuqeksnu dh izR;k'kk esa dkjiksjs'ku ds dk;kZy; Kki la0&21&fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011&09&fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh0 fnukad 09&05&2011 ds LrEHk&2 esa izkfo/kkfur DOEACC ds 'vks' ysoy dEI;wVj izek.k&i= ds LFkku ij 'vks' ysoy vFkk led{k ,d o"khZ; vgZrk rFkk dk;kZy; Kki la0&34&fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011&09&fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh0 fnukad 24&06&2011 ds LrEHk&2 esa izkfo/kkfur DOEACC ds "ccc izek.k&i=" ds LFkku ij "ccc izek.k&i= vFkok led{k dEI;wVj vgZrk" ,rn~}kjk izfrLFkkfir dh tkrh gSA
(c) dk;kZy; Kki la0&21&fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011&09&fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh0 fnukad 09&05&2011 lifBr dk;kZy; Kki la0&34& fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@2011&09&fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh0 fnukad 24&06&2011 ds vU; izkfo/kku ;Fkkor~ ykxw jgsaxsaA
2- m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn ifjpkydh; deZpkjh oxZ lsok fofu;ekoyh] 1995 (;Fkk la'kksf/kr) tks fd lEizfr m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksj'ku fy0 esa Hkh izHkkoh ,oa ykxw gS ds ifjf'k"V 1 (d) ds Js.kh i&4 ds izLrj (4) ;kfU=d laoxZ esa bafxr rduhf'k;u xzsM&2 ds in ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq dkjiksjs'ku ds dk;kZy; Kki la0&06&fofu;e ,oa [email protected]@11&04&fofu;[email protected] fnukad 29&01&2011 }kjk ykxw ,oa izHkkoh dh x;h dEI;wVj vgZrk "DOEACC }kjk iznRr 80 ?k.Vs dk Course on Computer Concept (CCC) dk izek.k i= fd;k tkrk gS] ftls lk{kkRdkj ds le; izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA" ds LFkku ij ,rn~}kjk] funs'kd e.My ds dk;ksZRrj vuqeksnu dh izR;k'kk esa] 'Course on Computer Concept (CCC) dk izek.k i= vFkok led{k dEI;wVj izek.k&i= fd;k tkrk gSA' laxr fofu;ekoyh ds vU; izkfo/kku ;Fkkor~ ykxw jgsaxsA
izcU/k funs'kd"
This order as is evident was passed in anticipation of formal approval being accorded to the decision by the Board of Directors of the Corporation which came to be granted on 23 November 2015 in the following terms:-
"la[;k% [email protected]@cSBd (120&18)@2015
fnukWad% 4 fnlEcj 2015
vij lfpo&izFke
fnukWad 23 uoEcj] 2015 dks 'lHkk d{k'] 'kfDr Hkou] लखनऊ esa lEiUu m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds funs'kd e.My dh 120oha cSBd ds dk;Zo`Rr dk m}j.kA
fo"k;
funs'kd e.My dk fu.kZ;
120(18)
Vh0th0&2 ,oa lewg&x ds vU; inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq la'kksf/kr dEI;wVj vgZrk ds lEcU/k esa tkjh dk;kZy; Kki la0 20&fofu;[email protected]@13&09&fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh0 fnukad 05&07&2013 dk dk;ksZRrj vuqeksnu ds lEcU/k esaA
120(18)
Vh0th0&2 lewg&x ds vU; inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq la'kksf/kr dEI;wVj vgZrk ds lEcU/k esa tkjh dk;kZy; Kki la0 20&fofu;[email protected]@13&09&fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh0 fnukad 05&07&2013 ds dk;ksZRrj vuqeksnu ds izLrko ij fopkj foe'kZ mijkUr fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd dk;kZy; Kki la0 20&fofu;[email protected]@13&09&fofu;[email protected] Vh0lh0 fnukWad 05&07&2013 dk dk;ksZRrj vuqeksnu bl izfrcU/kk/khu iznku fd;k tkrk gS fd ;g vkns'k tkjh gksus dh frfFk vFkkZr~ fnukad 05&07&2013 ls 07&10&2015 rd ds fy;s izHkkoh ekuk tk;sxkA
gLrk{kfjr
(lat; vxzoky)
v/;{kla0 lfpo (jk0iz0)@ dk;[email protected]'k0 ,oa izf'k0
la dk;[email protected] dkfofu ,oa fofu;[email protected] ih0,l0
vij lfpo (izFke)"
The Corporation did not rest here but in fact proceeded to amend the qualification further on 8 October 2015 by passing the following resolution:-
"m0iz0 ikoj dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
(m0iz0 ljdkj dk midze)
'kfDr Hkou] 14&v'kksd ekxZ]लखनऊ
la[;k% 72&fofu;[email protected]&[email protected]@2015&68fofu;[email protected] fnukad% 08 vDVwcj] 2015
fo"k;% & rduhf'k;u (xzsM&2) (fo|qr) ds in ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr vfuok;Z 'kSf{kd vgZrk esa la'kks/ku ,oa rduhf'k;u (xzsM&2) ds in ls voj vfHk;Urk ds in ij foHkkxh; izksUufr gsrq orZeku izkfo/kkuksa esa ifjorZu ds lEcU/k esaA
dk;kZy; Kki
"vkfVZdy vkWQ ,lksfl,s'ku" esa iznRr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fy0 ds funs'kd e.My dh fnukad 08-09-2015 dks lEiUu 118oha cSBd esa en la[;k&118(43)@2015 ij ikfjr izLrko ds vuqikyu esa m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn ifjpkydh; deZpkjh oxZ lsokfofu;ekoyh& 1995] (tks lEizfr m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku esa Hkh ykxw gS) esa Js.kh&'i&4'] Js.kh&'i&5' ,oa Js.kh&'i&6' ds rduhdh inksa ij dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa dh lh/kh HkrhZ ,oa izksUufr vkfn ls lEcfU/kr dfri; izkfo/kkuksa dks] ,rn~}kjk] fuEukuqlkj ls'kksf/[email protected] fd;k tkrk gS%&
1- Js.kh&'i&4' ds rdjhf'k;u xzsM&2 (fo|qr) ds ij ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq 'kSf{kd vgZrk%&
orZeku 'kSf{kd vgZrk
la'kksf/kr 'kSf{kd vgZrk
(1) ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] m0iz0 dh gkbZLdwy ;k led{k ijh{kk foKku ,oa xf.kr fo"k; ds lkFk mRrh.kZ rFkk bysDVz~hf'k;u Vz~sM esa vf[ky Hkkjrh; jkT; O;kolkf;d izek.k&i=A
(2) "ccc" izek.k&i= vFkok led{k dEI;wVj vgZrkA
(1) ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] m0iz0 dh gkbZLdwy ;k led{k ijh{kk foKku ,oa xf.kr fo"k;ksa ds lkFk mRrh.kZ gksuk vko';d rFkk bysDVz~hf'k;[email protected][email protected]~dy (dkS'ky fodkl ds vUrxZr fo|qr forj.k) Vz~sM esa vf[ky Hkkjrh; jkT; O;kolkf;d izek.k&i=A
(2) "DOEACC" (orZeku esa NIELIT) }kjk fuxZr "ccc"/"o" [email protected]"A" ysoy [email protected] "B" ysoy vFkok "C" ysoy izek.k&i=A
The qualifications were amended again vide a decision taken on 28 April 2016 which was in the following terms:
"m0iz0 ikoj dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
(m0iz0 ljdkj dk midze)
'kfDr Hkou] 14&v'kksd ekxZ]
la[;k% 38&fofu;[email protected]&[email protected]@2015&68fofu;[email protected] fnukad% 28 vizSy] 2016
fo"k;%& rduhf'k;u (xzsM&2) (fo|qr) ds in ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr vfuok;Z 'kSf{kd vgZrk ,oa ijh{kk iz.kkyh esa la'kks/kuA
dk;kZy; Kki
"vkfVZdy vkWQ ,lksfl,s'ku" esa iznRr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fy0 ds funs'kd e.My dh fnukad 01-04-2016 dks lEiUu 123oha cSBd esa en la[;k&123(15) ij ikfjr izLrko ds vuqikyu esa m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn ifjpkydh; deZpkjh oxZ lsokfofu;ekoyh& 1995] esa rduhf'k;u (xzsM&2) (fo|qr) ds fy;s dk;kZy; Kki la0&72&fofu;[email protected]&[email protected]@2015&68 fofu;[email protected] fnukad% 08 vDVwcj] 2015 }kjk lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ 'kSf{kd vgZrk ,oa lh/kh HkrhZ dh fyf[kr ijh{kk izfdz;k dks ,rn~}kjk] fuEukuqlkj ls'kksf/[email protected] fd;k tkrk gS%&
1- 'kSf{kd vgZrk
orZeku 'kSf{kd vgZrk
la'kksf/kr 'kSf{kd vgZrk
(1) ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] m0iz0 dh gkbZLdwy ;k led{k ijh{kk foKku ,oa xf.kr fo"k; ds lkFk mRrh.kZ gksuk vko';d rFkk bysDVz~hf'k;[email protected][email protected] bysfDVz~dy (dkS'ky fodkl ds vUrxZr fo|qr forj.k) Vz~sM esa vf[ky Hkkjrh; jkT; O;kolkf;d izek.k&i=A
(2) "DOEACC" (orZeku esa NIELIT) }kjk fuxZr "ccc"/"o" [email protected]"A" ysoy [email protected] "B" ysoy vFkok "C" ysoy izek.k&i=A
(1) ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] m0iz0 dh gkbZLdwy ;k led{k ijh{kk foKku ,oa xf.kr fo"k;ksa ds lkFk mRrh.kZ gksuk vko';d rFkk bysDVz~hf'k;[email protected] [email protected]~dy (dkS'ky fodkl ds vUrxZr fo|qr forj.k) Vz~sM esa vf[ky Hkkjrh; jkT; O;kolkf;d izek.k&i=A
(2) & foyqIr &
The last but none the less significant is the stipulation which was carried in the advertisement and set out the qualifications required to be possessed in the field of computer literacy. The relevant clause read thus:-
"2- vfuok;Z vgZrk;sa%& (1) Ekk/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn m0iz0 dh gkbZ Ldwy ;k led{k ijh{kk foKku ,oa xf.kr fo"k; ds lkFk mRrh.kZ rFkk bysfDVz~hf'k;u Vz~sM esa vf[ky Hkkjrh;@ jkT; O;olkf;d izek.k i=A ,oa (2) Course on computer concept (ccc) izek.k i= vFkok led+{k dEI;wVj vgZrk izek.k i=A"
The requirement to produce the certificate of CCC or its equivalent was also mentioned in the Interview call letter in the following terms:-
"fo|qr lsok vk;ksx
mRrj izns'k ikoj dkWjiksjs'ku fy0
(m0iz0 ljdkj dk midze)
ch&17] ts&jksM] lsDVj&lh] egkuxj foLrkj] लखनऊ
lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqykok i=
1- lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqykok i= (tks vkids }kjk osclkbV ls MkmuyksM fd;k x;k gS)A
2- vkWuykbu vkosnu i= dk fizaVvkmVA
3- tUefrfFk izek.k i= (gkbZLdwy izek.k i= ftlesa tUefrfFk vafdr gks)A
4- gkbZLdwy izek.k i= ;k led+{k ijh{kk foKku ,oa xf.kr fo"k; ds lkFk mRrh.kZ rFkk bysDVz~hf'k;u Vz~sM esa vf[ky Hkkjrh;@jkT; O;olkf;d izek.k i= A dsoy bysDVz~hf'k;u Vz~sM dk izek.k i= gh ekU; gksxk] nwjLFk f'k{kk ek/;e ls izkIr izek.k i= ,oa vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij izkIr izek.k i= ekU; ugha gksaxsA
5- 'ccc' daI;wVj dkslZ mRrh.kZ gksus dk izek.k i= ;k led{k daI;wVj vgZrk izek.k i= (izek.k i= esa vof/k vafdr gks)A
6- tkfr izek.k&i= vkjf{kr oxZ gsrq (vU; fiNM+k oxZ ds varxZr fuxZr izek.k i= eas ukWu&dzheh ys;j vafdr gksuk pkfg,) A
7- HkwriwoZ lSfud izek.k i= ftlesa lsuk esa dh xbZ lsok vof/k vafdr gks (;Fkk mRrj izns'k ds 'kklukns'k esa ifjHkkf"kr ,oa ftUgksaus lsok esa de ls de 05 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dh gks) A
8- Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ds vkfJr dk izek.k i= (;fn ykxw gks)A
9- vizsafValf'ki ,DV 1961 ds varxZr izkIr izf'k{k.k lEcU/kh izek.k i= (;fn ykxw gks)A
10- mRrj izns'k dk ewy fuokl izek.k i= (ftykf/[email protected]{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr) (vkjf{kr oxZ gsrq) A
11- vH;FkhZ vius lkFk nks uohure ikliksVZ lkbt QksVks vo'; yk,aA"
D. THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
Before proceeding to the merits of the challenge raised in these writ petitions, the Court must note a preliminary objection which was taken by Sri Mishra with regard to the right of the petitioners to assail the eligibility criteria set out on the advertisement as well as the result of the selection process. Sri Mishra submitted that both the advertisements had in unequivocal terms prescribed that a CCC certificate or a certificate of computer knowledge equivalent thereto would be acceptable. It was his submission that this stipulation in the two advertisements entitled all persons who held a computer literacy certificate equivalent to a CCC certificate to participate in the selection process. In view thereof, it was his submission that the petitioners being fully aware of such candidates being also eligible and having participated in the selection process itself cannot now turn around and assail this eligibility condition as prescribed in the advertisements. Sri Mishra contended that in view of the settled legal position on this issue, the petitioners having once participated in the selection process clearly could not raise any challenge to the eligibility conditions prescribed therein and were clearly estopped. Ordinarily and in light of the settled position in law in this respect, Sri Misra would have been correct in his submission. The petitioners having participated in the selection process cannot challenge a prescription contained therein which conferred a status of eligibility even on those candidates who did not hold a CCC certificate but held a certificate which was stated to be equivalent thereto. This condition was unambiguously carried in both the advertisements. However, as would be evident from the recordal of the submissions advanced, the real issue which has been canvassed for consideration before this Court is really not in respect of the eligibility condition as framed and prescribed. In essence the primary issue which has been advanced for the consideration of this Court was whether candidates whose names stood included in the select list did in fact hold certificates which could be described as equivalent to a CCC certificate and if not what would be its resultant impact on the select list. Coupled with this is the enquiry on the issue of whether the Commission did undertake an exercise to assess and examine whether candidates who did not possess a CCC certificate did in fact hold a qualification which could be said to be equivalent thereto. These two issues as would be evident clearly does not rest upon a determination of the validity of the conditions prescribed in the advertisement. The seminal issue is whether the select list itself has been validly prepared and whether the candidates included in the said list were in fact qualified and eligible to find place in the said list. This challenge obviously could have been raised by the petitioners only after the publication of the final select list. The challenge as noted above is therefore not really restricted to the validity of the conditions imposed in the advertisement but essentially with respect to the validity of the selection process and the list prepared pursuant thereto. A challenge on this aspect cannot be said to have been lost to the petitioners by mere participation in the selection process. The Court is of the considered view that no estoppel operates against the petitioners insofar as this limb of the challenge is concerned. In view thereof the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mishra is negatived.
E. THE SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS
Sri Khare, who lead the submissions on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Commission followed no recognisable or legally sustainable procedure before deciding upon the equivalence of certificates held by a large number of candidates who did not possess the CCC certificate. It was his submission that in order for the selection process to be fair and transparent, norms in respect of equivalence should have been decided before the commencement of the selection process. Sri Khare further submitted that no authority vested in the Managing Director to prescribe or amend the qualifications with respect to computer literacy. This function in his submission could have been performed only by the Board of Directors. He laid stress upon the fact that the prescription in respect of computer literacy stood prescribed by an order of the Board of Directors of the Corporation in terms of the office order dated 29 January 2011. He drew the attention of the Court to the contents of the office order dated 5 July 2013 issued by the Managing Director which ex facie evidenced a decision taken by the Managing Director to amend the qualifications as prescribed in the office order dated 29 January 2011. This in his submission was wholly illegal. Shri Khare also highlighted the fact that this order itself had been made in anticipation of an approval being accorded to this decision by the Board. According to Sri Khare, the entire procedure adopted by the respondents was clearly illegal since admittedly the Board proceeded to grant ex post facto sanction to the decision of the Managing Director only on 23 November 2015 after the selection process initiated by the first advertisement had come to an end and at a stage when results of the written exam held pursuant to the second advertisement had been declared. Sri Khare further submitted that the Commission evidently did not undertake any exercise to enquire into the genuineness of the certificates submitted by the selected candidates who did not hold a CCC certificate and that the enquiry on this issue appears to have been initiated by the Commission only after the Court on 12 August 2016 noticed these aspects and required the respondents to file a further affidavit. Sri Khare then submitted that the acceptance of certificates issued by private institutes/entities which were unrecognised by any statutory or autonomous body of Government could not have been accepted as valid certificates equivalent to the CCC certificate issued by NEILIT. Shri Khare laid stress upon the various Government Orders issued from time to time and appended along with his "Compilation", handed over during the course of oral submissions, to highlight that in all recruitment exercises undertaken by the State Government, a CCC certificate issued by NIELIT or the erstwhile DOEACC society alone were recognised as evidence of knowledge of computer concepts. He further referred to the U.P. District Court Service Rules, 2013 to submit that even in recruitment exercises undertaken by the High Court, it is the CCC certificate issued by DOEACC or NIELIT alone which was accepted as the certificate liable to be possessed necessarily by a candidate in order to be considered eligible. It was his submission that certificates issued by private institutes and entities have never been recognised by any public or Government body as a valid qualification. Sri Khare also drew the attention of the Court to the response given by NIELIT in respect of an application made under the Right to Information Act 2005 wherein, according to him, it clearly held out that there was no certificate which can be said to be equivalent to the CCC certificate issued by it. Sri Khare then referred to the provisions contained in the All India Council for Technical Education Act 19873, the U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam 19624 and other relevant statutes relating to technical education to submit that "technical education" clearly envisages and comprehends knowledge in computer concepts and it is only a diploma or degree which is recognised and issued in accordance with the provisions of the statutes aforementioned which can be accepted as a lawful equivalent of a CCC certificate. Sri Khare then placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors5 to point that computer education is a subject which clearly falls within the provence of the AICTE and it is only qualifications issued and obtained in accordance with the provisions of the statutes aforementioned which can be recognised as equivalent. Sri Khare laid stress upon the following observations of the Supreme Court as they appear in Association of Management of Private Colleges in support of his above noted submissions:
" 61. Accordingly, Points 47.1 and 47.2 are answered in favour of the appellants.
Answer to Point 47.3
"62. The learned Senior Counsel for AICTE, Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, with reference to the definition of "technical education" under the provisions of the AICTE Act, urged that the definition of "engineering" and "technology" has to be construed and interpreted to bring MCA course under its fold in view of the meaning assigned to those words occurring in the definition clause by placing reliance on the different dictionaries, which are extracted as hereunder:
"62.1. As per Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, "technology" means:
"(1) Theoretical knowledge of industry and the industrial arts.
(2) The application of science to the arts.
(3) That branch of ethnology which treats of the development of the arts."
62.2. Wharton's Law Lexicon defines "technology" as:
"any information (including information embodied in software) other than information in the public domain, that is capable of being used in--(i) the development, production or use of any goods or software; (ii) the development of, or the carrying out of, an industrial or commercial activity or the provision of a service of any kind. Explanation, When technology is described wholly or partly by reference to the uses to which it (or the goods to which it relates) may be put, it shall include services which are provided or used, or which are capable of being used, in the development, production or use of such technology or goods. [Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery System....]
Means the branch of knowledge; the knowledge and means used to produce the material necessities of a society...."
62.3. Further, Encyclopedic Law Lexicon presents "technology" as:
"any information (including information embodied in software) other than information in the public domain, that is capable of being used in--
(i) the development, production or use of any goods or software;
(ii) the development of, or the carrying out of, an industrial or commercial activity or the provision of a service of any kind."
[Section 4(1), the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery System (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act, 2005.]
62.4. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "technology" as:
"1. (a) The branch of knowledge that deals with the mechanical arts of applied sciences; a discourse or treaties on (one of) these subjects, orig. on an art or arts.
(b) The terminology of a particular subject; technical nomenclature.
2. (a) The mechanical arts or applied sciences collectively; the application of (any of) these.
(b) A particular mechanical art or applied science."
62.5. Further, "technology", in Advanced Law Lexicon is defined as:
"any special or technical knowledge or any special service required for any purpose whosoever by an industrial concern under any foreign collaboration, and includes designs, drawings, publications and technical personnel."
and "knowledge" is defined in the same dictionary as:
"the means and methods of producing goods and services, or the application of science to production or distribution, resulting in the creation of new products, new manufacturing processes, or more efficient methods of distribution. (WTO)."
62.6. The meaning of "engineering" as given in dictionaries read as under:
Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary -- Engineering -- Engineering in the broader sense, is that branch of human endeavour by which the forces of nature are brought under human control and the properties of matter made useful in structures and machines.
Advanced Law Lexicon -- The activity or the functions of an engineer; the science by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to man in structures, machines and products; relating to engineering.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary -- The work done by or the occupation of, an engineer, the application of the science for directly useful purposes as, construction, propulsion, communication or manufacture. The action of working artfully to bring something about. A field of study or activity concerned with deliberate alteration or modification in some particular area.
Law Lexicon -- The activity or the functions of an engineer; the science by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to man in structures, machines and products;"
63. The above meanings of the words "technology" and "engineering" as per the dictionaries referred to supra would clearly go to show that MCA also comes within the definition of "technology". Therefore, the contention that technical education includes MCA as raised by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of AICTE stands to its reasoning and logic in view of the nature of MCA course which is being imparted to the students at post graduation level which is being conducted by the institutions, constituent colleges and affiliated colleges to the universities. The same is a technical education and therefore, it comes within the definition of "technical education" but for its proper conduct of courses and regulation the role of AICTE must be advisory and for the same, a note shall be given to UGC for its implementation by it but not AICTE.
64. Accordingly, Point 47.3 is answered in favour of respondent AICTE." (emphasis supplied)
The underlying theme of the submission was that a qualification can be considered to be equivalent to the CCC certificate only if it has come to be issued by a recognised body or in accordance with the provisions of a statute.
Sri Nandan, learned Senior Counsel has appeared on behalf of the selected candidates who have preferred Writ-A No. 18129 of 2017. Sri Nandan submitted that the petitioners in the aforementioned two writ petitions did hold CCC certificates issued by NIELIT and that the interim orders issued by the Court were causing grave prejudice to the selected candidates. He therefore, prayed for vacation of the interim orders. Sri Nandan then drew the attention of the Court to the position of the petitioners in Writ-A No. 64805 of 2015 to submit that the first petitioner therein had already withdrawn and that the second petitioner had not even obtained the minimum marks required for participating in the interview. In view of this he submitted that the interlocutory restraint issued on the said writ petition deserves to be vacated forthwith. It would be apposite to note that on 13 January 2017 Writ-A No. 64805 of 2015 came to be dismissed as not pressed on an application made by the petitioners therein. However, on a subsequent application moved by the petitioner No. 2, the writ petition stood revived insofar as the second petitioner was concerned only. At this stage itself it would also be appropriate to note that the submission of Sri Nandan with regard to the entitlement of the second petitioner in Writ A No. 64805 of 2015 was based on the assumption that he did not obtain the minimum marks in order to qualify for selection. It was however, pointed out by Sri H.R. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Commission that although the second petitioner therein had obtained more than the qualifying marks in the selection, his name did not figure in the select list since he had not obtained marks equivalent to or more than the cut off which was prescribed by the Commission. This issue therefore, need not detain us any further. In any view of the matter, the status of those selected candidates who already hold and admittedly possess the CCC certificates issued by the NIELIT shall be duly taken note of and considered in the subsequent parts of this judgment.
Sri H.R. Mishra, learned senior counsel, who has appeared for the Commission, has submitted that the orders issued by the Corporation prescribing the essential qualifications in respect of computer literacy could not be said to be arbitrary or illegal. It was his submission that the prescription of an essential qualification is primarily the function of the employer and it is for the employer alone to judge what would be an appropriate qualification for a particular post. Sri Mishra submitted that the acceptance of a certificate equivalent to CCC was necessitated in order to attract an adequate number of applicants. He submitted that certificates in respect of computer literacy not granted by DOEACC/NIELIT were accepted after a due verification exercise undertaken by the Commission before permitting candidates to appear at the interview. Shri Mishra referring to the stipulations carried in the advertisements highlighted that all candidates who had provisionally cleared the written examination and had been invited to participate in the interview were required to furnish hard copies of their certificates for verification. He submitted that the requirement of producing the certificates in original was scrupulously adhered to. He then also referred to the self-certification submitted by candidates holding out that the certificates being submitted by them were in accordance with the prescriptions carried in the advertisement of they being equivalent to a CCC certificate.
Shri Mishra further invited the attention of the Court to a noting dated 27 January 2015 in which the issue of equivalence came to be raised and considered. The relevant extract of the note reads thus:-
"vk;ksx funs'kd (dk0iz0 iz'kk0) @ izcU/k funs'kd] ikdkfy
laKkfur djuk gS fd DOEACC }kjk lapkfyr 'ikB~;dze' 'ccc' }kjk ewyr% vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dEI;wVj ls lEcfU/kr ewyHkwr lwpuk miyC/k djkuk gSA DOEACC }kjk fuxZr ccc ikB~;dze dh vof/k 3 ekg vFkok 80 ?kaVs gSA m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku }kjk LdkMk (SCADA) ,oa vU; vk/kqfud ;a=ksa ds lapkyu gsrq fofu;e esa dEI;wVj dk izkjfEHkd Kku gksuk vko';d le>k x;k ftlds dkj.k orZeku esa fofu;e esa 'ccc' vFkok led{k dk izek.k i= izLrqr djuk mfYyf[kr gSA mRrj izns'k ,oa vU; izns'kksa ls vH;FkhZ lk{kkRdkj gsrq mifLFkr gks jgs gSaA muds }kjk dEI;wVj Kku lEcU/kh fofHkUu izdkj ds izek.k i= izLrqr fd;s tk jgs gSa] ftu ij muds }kjk fd;s x;s ikB~;dze dk vadu muds izek.k i= esa vafdr u gksus ds dkj.k led{krk lEcU/kh fu.kZ; ysuk lHkao ugha gks ik jgk gSA
vr% bu ifjfLFk;ksa esa ;g mfpr gksxk fd ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk dEI;wVj lEc/kh ewyHkwr ikB~;dze U;wure 03 ekg vFkok 80 ?kaVs dk dEI;wVj izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k tkrk gS rks mls 'ccc' ds led{k ekuus dh lgefr iznku djuk pkgsaA"
The above note is perhaps evidence of the anomalous situation which the selecting body faced in the absence of any guiding principles having been formulated in respect of certificates which could be treated as equivalent to CCC. It was in this context that Shri Mishra further submitted that ultimately a decision was taken that any certificate of computer literacy which was awarded by an organisation/institute upon completion of a three months or 80 hours instruction schedule was treated as equivalent to the CCC certificate.
Shri Mishra submitted that all candidates were required to submit self certification in compliance with the aforesaid decision and it was only thereafter that they were permitted to participate in the interviews. He has referred to the averments taken in this regard in paragraphs 17 and 22 of the original counter affidavit to submit that it was only upon due verification that the candidates had acquired the certificate after participating in a course of three months or 80 hours that he/she was considered eligible to participate further in the selection process.
Shri Mishra learned counsel then invited the attention of the Court to the provisions in the Articles of Association of the Corporation to submit that the power to appoint, remove or suspend including the power to fix salaries, emoluments and other matters connected therewith stood conferred upon the Directors of the Corporation in terms of Article 48. This in his submission would be liable to be viewed as conferring a power on the Directors (which would necessarily include the Managing Director) to specify terms and conditions of service and the prescription of an eligibility qualification. He therefore submitted that the office orders issued by the Managing Director in anticipation of formal approval being accorded thereto by the Board of Directors could not be said to be illegal or ultra vires. Shri Mishra submitted that in any view of the matter once the Board of Directors had approved the said decision taken by the Managing Director in its meeting held on 23 November 2015, the selections were not liable to be interfered with on this score. It was the submission of Shri Mishra that it was clearly open to the Board of Directors to accord ex post facto approval to the decisions taken by the Managing Director and that no provision of the Articles of Association fettered this power inhering in the Board. In any view of the matter, Shri Mishra submitted that in light of the provisions of Article 48, the decision taken by the Managing Director could not be described as being inherently ultra vires and that therefore it could be and was rightly approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Shri Mishra further drew the attention of the Court to a chart appended along with a supplementary counter affidavit dated 9 August 2015 to contend that admittedly none of the petitioners had obtained the cut off marks which came to be prescribed by the Commission. He referred to the following disclosures as made in a supplementary counter affidavit dated 9 August 2015 to drive home his submission.
NAME OF CANDIDATE
ROLL NO
TOTAL MARKS
PRASHANT KUMAR JAISWAL
22507608
123.67
SANDEEP KUMAR
23714711
113.33
SUDHIR KUMAR
23110083
107.33
ABHIJIT KUMAR SAHU
23311708
102.67
RAVI PRAKASH
23613833
96.33
PRABAL KUMAR GAUTAM
21201638
124.00
ATISH KUMAR
24319598
125.33
ANURAG
23211041
113.67
DEV SWAROOP UPADHAYA
22406600
137.00
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHORE
22507754
122.67
SHIV NARAIN BHARTIYA
22204631
111.67
SANDEEP KUMAR
24320881
112.00
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI
24319884
139.33
CUT -OFF MARKS
UNRESERVED .................................
139.67
OBC .....................................................
129.67
SC ......................................................
118.33
ST ......................................................
90.33
He therefore submitted that the selection was not liable to be struck down at their instance.
Shri Mishra then took the Court through the averments taken in a short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent to highlight that the Commission had formed a sub-committee to scrutinise all certificates submitted by candidates who did not hold the CCC certificates. He submitted that it was only after document verification was carried out and the self- declaration obtained from the candidates that they were permitted to participate in the interview. Referring to the order of the Court dated 12 August 2016, Shri Mishra also took the Court through the various responses obtained from entities and organisations who had issued certificates to the selected candidates to submit that the responses received from them clearly evidenced that the certificates had come to be issued only after the holders thereof had participated in a course with a duration of at least three months or 80 hours. In view thereof it was his submission that the selection process could not be said to be tainted by any illegality so as to warrant interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Shri Mishra further submitted that irrespective of the constitution or status of any organisation or entity, as long as the certificate issued by it was upon completion of a course of three months or 80 hours, it was liable to be treated as valid and equivalent to a CCC certificate. In view thereof Shri Mishra submitted that the challenge to the selection process must necessarily fail.
To a pointed query of the Court as to whether the Commission had undertaken any exercise to bifurcate candidates who held the CCC certificate and those who did not, Shri Mishra replied in the negative. Upon being asked to submit whether such information was in fact in the possession of the Commission, Shri Mishra was not in a position to give any definitive answer in the absence of the records and either ways since no such exercise appears to have been undertaken.
Shri Mishra lastly highlighted the fact that the 1995 Regulations did not carry any prescription with respect to computer knowledge and literacy. In his submission, since these regulations were silent on this aspect it was open to the Board of Directors and the Managing Director to prescribe the requisite qualification in the field of computer literacy which must be held by a candidate applying for the post in question. He submitted that in view of the above, there was no repugnancy between the order issued by the Managing Director which was subsequently ratified by the Board of Directors of the Corporation and the 1995 Regulations.
In response to the submission of Shri Khare resting upon the provisions of the 1987 Act as also the 1962 UP Act, Shri Mishra submitted that none of them specifically covered or controlled the grant of a CCC certificate or a qualification equivalent thereto. It was his submission that the statutes which have been referred and relied upon by Shri Khare do not deal with a CCC certificate which essentially is a basic or rudimentary certificate in respect of computer knowledge. In view thereof he submitted that the respondents could not be faulted in accepting certificates issued by private entities or organisations.
Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation had adopted and reiterated the submissions advanced by Shri Mishra and noted herein above.
F. Whether the qualification as prescribed or the decision of the Board of Directors is liable to be quashed
In order to appreciate the backdrop in which the present challenge has travelled to this Court, it would be apposite to note the stand taken by the Corporation as embodied in its various office orders prescribing qualifications in respect of computer literacy. As was noted above, the order dated 29 January 2011 required all prospective candidates to hold a CCC certificate issued by DOEACC. This qualification was subsequently amended by the Managing Director of the Corporation in terms of the order dated 5 July 2013 which provided for the holding of a CCC certificate or a certificate equivalent thereto as being the essential qualification. The order of the Managing Director was ratified by the Board of Directors in their meeting held on 23 November 2015.
The record would further reveal that although by the Office Order dated 5 July 2013, the requirement of possessing a CCC Certificate issued by DOEACC had been done away with and amended to provide for the holding of a CCC Certificate or a certificate equivalent thereto, the required qualification was again amended on 8 September 2015 with the Board of Directors prescribing not only a CCC certificate but also an O/A/B/C level certificates issued by DOEACC/NIELIT as valid qualifications. By a subsequent decision taken on 28 April 2016, the requirement of holding a CCC Certificate or an equivalent certificate was deleted altogether. It is significant to note that while the resolution dated 8 October 2015 did away with the holding of a computer certificate equivalent to a CCC Certificate a provision was made for aspirants to hold either a CCC/O Level/A Level/B Level/C Level certificate issued by NIELIT, this provision or prescription of eligibility was totally done away with in terms of the resolution of the Board dated 28 April 2016. The second significant aspect which merits notice is that although by its resolution of 8 October 2015 the prescription of eligibility was amended, on 23 November 2015 the Board of Directors proceeded to ratify the order dated 5 July 2013 and specifically saved selections held in the interregnum by providing that the qualification prescribed in the said office order would hold and govern the field between the period 5 July 2013 to 7 October 2015.
Although Sri Khare contended that the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 23 November 2015 was illegal and arbitrary, this exercise of power was not shown to be either beyond the jurisdiction of their authority or in violation of the Articles of Association. Regard must be had to the fact that the Board of Directors was not framing a rule or promulgating delegated legislation. The power to prescribe terms and conditions of service stood statutorily conferred and vested in the Corporation which had to necessarily, bearing in mind its corporate structure, act through its Board of Directors. This Court has also noted the provisions of Clause 48 of the Articles of Association which conferred certain powers on a Director as distinct from the Board of Directors, a multi-member body. Sri Khare was unable to point to any provision in the Articles of Association in terms of which the power to prescribe or formulate a term or condition of service stood vested in the Board of Directors exclusively. Ratification as is well known, is the approval of an action of an authority by act, word or conduct which was unauthorisedly performed in the first instance. It primarily entails the validation of an invalid act. Even if it is assumed that the Managing Director lacked the requisite authority to issue the office order dated 5 July 2013, his action and decision stood ratified by the Board of Directors on 23 November 2015. In this sense the Office Order of 5 July 2013 stood washed of any perceived illegality or lack of authority. For all intents and purposes it became a decision of the Board of Directors itself. Ratification by its very nature retrospectively validates an invalid act or decision. Additionally, the Court is unable to hold that the decision of the Managing Director suffered from the vice of substantive ultra vires in light of the provisions of the Articles of Association. In view thereof, the Court holds that the resolution dated 23 November 2015 is not liable to be quashed or interfered with on this score. One may, in this connection, usefully refer to the following principles enunciated by the Supreme Court on the issue of ratification in National Institute of Technology And Another Vs. Pannalal Choudhary And Another6.
Dealing with a challenge to an order of dismissal which was passed by the Principal and Secretary, both of whom had no authority and that their decisions were ultimately approved by the Board of Governors, the competent authority, the Supreme Court held thus:
"29. The expression "ratification" means "the making valid of an act already done". This principle is derived from the Latin maxim "ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur" meaning thereby "a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act." It is for this reason, the ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated.
30. The expression "ratification" was succinctly defined by the English Court in one old case, Hartman Vs. Hornsby [Hartman Vs. Hornsby, 142 Mo 368 : 44 SW 242 at p. 244 (1897)] as under:
"''Ratification' is the approval by act, word, or conduct, of that which was attempted (of accomplishment), but which was improperly or unauthorisedly performed in the first instance."
31. The law of ratification was applied by this Court in Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta Vs. U.O.I [Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta Vs. U.O.I, (1973) 2 SCC 543]. In that case, the Chairman of the Board of Directors had terminated the services of the General Manager of a Company pursuant to a resolution taken by the Board at a meeting. It was not in dispute that the meeting had been improperly held and consequently the resolution passed in the said meeting terminating the services of General Manager was invalid. However, the Board of Directors then convened subsequent meeting and in this meeting affirmed the earlier resolution, which had been passed in improper meeting. On these facts, the Court held : (SCC pp. 546-47, para 14)
"14 ... Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance of the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 16-12-1953 to terminate his services, it would not follow that the action of the Chairman could not be ratified in a regularly convened meeting of the Board of Directors. The point is that even assuming that the Chairman was not legally authorised to terminate the services of the appellant, he was acting on behalf of the Company in doing so, because, he purported to act in pursuance of the invalid resolution. Therefore, it was open to a regularly constituted meeting of the Board of Directors to ratify that action which, though unauthorised, was done on behalf of the Company. Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on 17-12-1953."
This view was approved by this Court in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. P.P. Singh [High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. P.P. Singh (2003) 4 SCC 239 : 2003 SCC (L&S)424].
32. The aforesaid principle of law of ratification was again applied by this Court in Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. Vs. Sunil [Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. Vs. Sunil, (2006) 5 SCC 96 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 926]. In this case, the respondent was an employee of the appellant Corporation. Consequent to a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed by the Managing Director of the appellant. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Board of Directors of the appellant Corporation passed a resolution ratifying the impugned action of the Managing Director and also empowering him to take decision in respect of the officers and staff in the grade of pay the maximum of which did not exceed Rs. 4700 p.m. Earlier, the Managing Director had powers only in respect of those posts where the maximum pay did not exceed Rs.1900 p.m. The respondent at the relevant time was drawing more than Rs.1800 p.m. Therefore, at the relevant time, the Managing Director was incompetent to dismiss the respondent. Accordingly, the High Court held [Sunil vs. Maharashtra State Mining Corpn., 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 758 : (2006) 1 Mah LJ 495] the order of dismissal to be invalid. The High Court further held that the said defect could not be rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and granted consequential relief. The appellant then filed the appeal in this Court by special leave. Ruma Pal, J. speaking for three-Judge Bench, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court held as under: (Sunil case [Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil, (2006) 5 SCC 96 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 926], SCC pp. 96g-h & 97a-b)
"The High Court rightly held that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act could not be subsequently "rectified" by ratification of the competent authority. Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur, namely, 'a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act.' Therefore, ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated.
* * *
In the present case, the Managing Director's order dismissing the respondent from the service was admittedly ratified by the Board of Directors unquestionably had the power to terminate the services of the respondent. Since the order of the Managing Director had been ratified by the Board of Directors such ratification related back to the date of the order and validated it."
33. Applying the aforementioned law of ratification to the facts at hand, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the order of dismissal dated 16.08.1996 was passed by the Principal and Secretary who had neither any authority to pass such order under the Rules nor was there any authorization given by the BoG in his favour to pass such order yet in our considered view when the BoG in their meeting held on 22-08-1996 approved the previous actions of the Principal and Secretary in passing the respondent's dismissal order dated 16-08-1996, all the irregularities complained of by the respondent in the proceedings including the authority exercised by the Principal and Secretary to dismiss him stood ratified by the competent authority (Board of Governors) themselves with retrospective effect from 16-8-1996 thereby making an invalid act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure prescribed in Rules.
34. In such circumstances, the respondent's grievance that the dismissal order had not been passed by the competent authority i.e. the BoG no longer survived."
While dealing with this issue, the Court before proceeding further notes and has to necessarily bear in mind that the power to prescribe a particular qualification vests exclusively in the employer. It is the employer who is the best judge to assess what qualifications must be necessarily possessed by an incumbent to a particular post. While exercising its powers of judicial review, this Court cannot step into the shoes of the employer and judge as to what would be an appropriate qualification. The narrow window within the contours of which the Court would interfere with such a decision is only where the qualifications prescribed are found to be ultra vires a legislative enactment or where it is demonstrated that the qualification prescribed is wholly extraneous to the duties and functions attached to a post. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution also cannot determine the equivalence between two qualifications since such an exercise would clearly fall within the domain of experts. In view of the above, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was no inherent illegality when the respondents proceeded to prescribe the eligibility qualification to be the possession of a CCC Certificate or a certificate equivalent thereto. The Court also as noted above does not find any illegality attached to the ratification by the Board of Directors to the decision of the Managing Director as embodied in his order dated 5 July 2013.
The prescription of this qualification also does not commend acceptance or consideration at the hands of the petitioner who participated in the recruitment process knowing fully well the essential eligibility qualifications prescribed.
The issue of whether the certificates which were accepted by the respondents as being equivalent to a CCC Certificate were in fact so is of course another issue altogether. The enquiry which the Court is obliged to undertake in the facts and circumstances of the present matter are essentially two:
(A) Whether certificates issued by private organisations/ entities which were unrecognised could, in fact, have been treated to be equivalent to a CCC Certificate? and
(B) Whether the Commission undertook any exercise to determine equivalence of such certificates.
It would be appropriate to deal with issue (B) in the first instance.
G. WHETHER AN EXERCISE TO ADJUDGE EQUIVALENCE WAS UNDERTAKEN
The quintessential elements of a valid selection process would necessarily encapsulate the following elements:-
A. Wide publicity of the proposed selection
B. Pre defined rules of selection which would include the bifurcation of marks between a written test and interview, prescriptions in respect of minimum and maximum age, principles of reservation if applicable, the constitution of the selection committee and a broad framework for the recruitment exercise.
C. Prescription of essential qualifications- the most significant and important aspect for initiation of a selection process which enables all intending applicants to adjudge whether they are eligible or not
D. Pre determined criteria to identify the zone of selection
In essence, the "rules of the game" must be clearly defined and pre determined so as to eschew any allegation of a lack of fair and transparent procedure having been adopted in the selection process. When the advertisement prescribes or confers the authority upon the selecting body to recognise candidates as eligible to participate on the basis of an "equivalent" qualification, it necessarily presupposes the determination and formulation of criteria which would guide and govern the question of equivalence. It would entail the recognition of certain predetermined qualifications which would be treated or recognised as equivalent. At its lowest, at least the criteria to confer or recognise equivalence would have to be formulated in advance.
The series of decisions taken by the Board of Directors can only be described as evidence of their vacillating views on the subject. This Court deems it appropriate to enter a note of caution that in matters pertaining to the prescription of an eligibility qualification, it is not only appropriate but also imperative that the employer exercises its powers so as to confer a degree of certainty with respect to the eligibility criteria as also to ensure that such conflicting decisions do not result in the creation of doubts and uncertainty with respect to the qualification required for a post in a public service.
As noted above and as was evident from the stipulations carried in the advertisement, a candidate upon passing the written examination was provisionally permitted to appear at the interview. It was at this stage that he was obliged to produce hard copies of testimonials evidencing him possessing a CCC Certificate or a certificate equivalent thereto. This requirement was reiterated in the interview letter which has already been extracted herein above.
However, the Commission appears to have rested this enquiry on equivalence solely on the basis of a self assessment and self declaration by the concerned candidate. At page 92 of the paper book of Writ-A No. 29901 of 2017, is a self declaration which was submitted by a candidate appearing for the interview and reads thus:
" eSa vfHkthr dqekj [email protected][email protected] Jh fcjsUnz ik.Ms; ?kks"k.kk djrk gwa fd foKkiu la[;k [email protected]@2014 rduhf'k;u xzsM&2 (fo|qr) ds in gsrq lk{kkRdkj ds le; esjs }kjk izLrqr dEI;qVj izek.k&i= NIELIT }kjk lEikfnr fd, tkus okys ikB~;dze 'ccc' ds led{k gS] ,oa mlesa 'ccc' ds vUrxZr vkus okyk lEiw.kZ ikB~;dze lfEefyr gSaA
esjs }kjk izLrqr dEI;wVj izek.k&i= 'ccc' ds led{k u ik, tkus dh fLFkfr esa] vH;FkZu ds lEcU/k esa fo|qr lsok vk;ksx }kjk tks Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k tk,xk] og eq>s Lohdk;Z gksxkA vH;FkZu fujLr gksus dh fLFkfr esa Hkh esjs }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj dk nkok ugha fd;k tk,xkA "
The decision of the respondents to treat certificates granted upon the culmination of a course spread over three months or eighty hours, is stated to have been taken on 27 January 2015. This was evidently a decision taken after the interviews had been held in December 2014 pursuant to the first advertisement dated 6 September 2014. Apart from the attestation which has been extracted herein above and is dated 31 December 2014, no other material was either referred to or pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Commission in respect of the issue of equivalency of certificates issued by organisations or entities other than NIELIT. It, therefore, appears that at the time when the interviews were held pursuant to the first advertisement inviting applications for filling up 2211 posts, there was no policy decision of either the Corporation or the Commission with respect to the equivalency of certificates issued by entities other than NIELIT. The consideration of this issue evidently appears to have been undertaken only on 27 January 2015. There was evidently no policy decision in place to guide the selectors on the issue of equivalency nor were any norms formulated before hand on the subject.
The policy decision taken on 27 January 2015 itself and even otherwise appears to be only a pro tem consideration of the issue. As is evident from the decision taken on 27 January 2015, it is apparent that all that was resolved was that any certificate issued upon culmination of a course spread over three months or eighty hours would be treated as equivalent. There is absolutely no mention or consideration of the curriculum or syllabi of a particular course administered by the organisation/entity other than NIELIT. The equivalence of a qualification cannot possibly be tested de hors an examination of the course content or its syllabus. NIELIT in great detail sets out the content and ambit of the CCC course which reads thus:
"COURSE ON COMPUTER CONCEPTS (CCC)
OBJECTIVE:
The course is designed to equip a person to use computers for professional as well as day to day use. It provides theoretical background as well as in depth knowledge of Software/packages. After completing the course the incumbent will be digitally literate and will be able to:
acquire confidence in using computer techniques available to users;
recognise the basic components of computers and terminology;
understand data, information and file management;
create documents using Word processor, Spreadsheet & Presentation Software;
understand computer networks, and browse the internet, content search, email and collaborate with peers;
use e-governance applications; and use computer to improve existing skills and learn new skills
use internet for digital financial services
The module on financial literacy will enable the individuals to understand the various financial services and be aware of the various schemes of Government of India.
DURATION:
80 Hours. (Theory: 25 hrs + Practical: 50 hrs. + Tutorial: 05 hrs.)
This course can also be offered as 10 days full time intensive course.
ALLOCATION OF TOTAL HOURS FOR EACH CHAPTER:
S.No.
Chapter
Theory Hours
Tutorial Hours
Pratical Hours
1.
Introduction to computer
2.
Introduction to GUI based Operating System
-
3.
Elements of Word Processing
3.5
4.
Spreadsheets
3.5
5.
Introduction to internet, WWW and web browsers
-
6.
Communication and Collaboration
-
7.
Application of presentations
-
8.
Application of Digital Financial Services
-
Total Hours
DETAILED SYLLABUS
3. INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTER
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Objectives
3.2 Word Processing Basics
3.2.1 Opening Word Processing Package
3.2.2 Menu Bar
3.2.3 Using The Help
3.2.4 Using The Icons Below Menu Bar
3.3 Opening and closing Documents
3.3.1 Opening Documents
3.3.2 Save and Save as
3.3.3 Page Setup
3.3.4 Print Preview
3.3.5 Printing of Documents
3.4 Text Creation and manipulation
3.4.1 Document Creation
3.4.2 Editing Text
3.4.3 Text Selection
3.4.4 Cut, Copy and Paste
3.4.5 Font and Size selection
3.4.6 Alignment of Text
3.5 Formatting the Text
3.5.1 Paragraph Indenting
3.5.2 Bullets and Numbering
3.5.3 Changing case
3.6 Table Manipulation
3.6.1 Draw Table
3.6.2 Changing cell width and height
3.6.3 Alignment of Text in cell
3.6.4 Delete / Insertion of row and column
3.6.5 Border and shading
3.7 Summary
3.8 Model Questions and Answers
4. SPREAD SHEET
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Objective
4.2 Elements of Electronic Spread Sheet
4.2.1 Opening of Spread Sheet
4.2.2 Addressing of Cells
4.2.3 Printing of Spread Sheet
4.2.4 Saving Workbooks
4.3 Manipulaton of Cells
4.3.1 Entering Text, Numbers and Dates
4.3.2 Creating Text, Number and Date Series
4.3..3 Editing Worksheet Data
4.3.4 Insertig and Deleting Rows, Column
4.3.5 Changing Cell, Height and Width
4.4 Function and Charts
4.4.1 Using Formulas
4.4.2 Fuction
4.4.3 Charts
4.5 Summary
4.6 Model Questions and Answers
5. INTRODUCTION TO INTERNET, WWW AND WEB BROWSERS
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Objectives
5.2 Basics of Computer Networks
5.2.1 Local Area Network (LAN)
5.2.2 Wide Area Network (WAN)
5.3 Internet
5.3.1 Concept of Internet
5.32 Basics of Internet Architecture
5.4 Service of Internet
5.4.1 World Wide Web and Websites
5.4.2 Communication on Internet
5.4.3 Internet Services
5.5 Preparing Computer for Inernet Access
5.5.1 ISPs and examples (Bradeband/Dialup/WiFi)
5.5.2 Internet Access Techniques
5.6 Web Browsing Software
5.6.1 Popular Web Browsing Software
5.7 Configuring Web Browser
5.8 Search Engines
5.8.1 Popular Search Engines / Search for content
5.8.2 Accessing Web Browser
5.8.3 Using Favorites Folder
5.8.4 Downloading Web Pages
5.8.5 Printing Web Pages
5.9 Summary
6.10 Model Questions and Answers"
The respondents have been unable to demonstrate that the holders of certificates other than CCC undertook instructions in accord with the course content referred to above. This issue, far from being considered does not appear to have been noticed or taken into consideration at all. The respondents either ways appear to have undertaken an exercise in respect of the certificates submitted by candidates only after the order passed by this Court on 12 August 2016. There was no predetermined criteria in respect of recognition of equivalence. There was no list of equivalent certificates. All that was ultimately decided was to recognise equivalence of all such certificates which had ostensibly been granted after three months or eighty hours of instruction. As noted above there was no enquiry in respect of course content or syllabi. This action has clearly tainted the entire selection process beyond repair.
Coming back to the facts of the present case, pursuant to the order passed by the Court, the Commission, for the first time by way of an affidavit of its Secretary dated 17 July 2017 issued a communication and addressed a query to some of the institutes whose certificates had been relied upon by selected candidates. One such communication is dated 7 March 2017. The Commission relies upon a response submitted by the said institution which is appended as Annexure SCA-2. A perusal of the documents appended as Annexure SCA - 2 evidence that the only response that the Commission received was that the entity/institution was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and that it certified that the holder of the certificate had in fact participated in the course. The said Annexure also brings on record a certificate issued by a society holding out that Gyan Ganga Computer Centre was in fact situate in District Patna and that it stood accredited to the society for a period of ten years commencing from 28 January 2008. This documentation also refers to a response issued by Satyamnet Human Development Organisation holding out that the student in question had undertaken a six month course in respect of basic computer literacy. Although the attestation refers to the course administered as CCC, the response of the private institution nowhere evidences it having been either accredited or recognised by NIELIT. It is, therefore, more than apparent that this scrutiny of testimonials was undertaken by the Commission only after and pursuant to the order of the Court dated 12 August 2016. The selection process in respect of the two advertisements had already come to an end and stood concluded prior thereto. The select list also had come to be prepared and finalised prior to this exercise being undertaken by the respondents.
As is evident from the above discussion, the question of equivalence was left to hinge solely upon a self declaration of the candidate. Neither the Corporation nor the Commission had any list of recognised equivalent certificates to guide them on the subject. The policy on equivalence which came about on 27 January 2015 was a decision taken not only too late but as noted above suffered from fundamental flaws. There was a complete and evident lack of enquiry on course content. Leaving these issues to be decided solely on the basis of a self declaration of candidates is unequivocal evidence of a failure to exercise powers and an abject abdication of functions vesting in the Commission. More fundamentally, none of the certificates other than CCC were shown or established to be a legally recognised equivalent.
In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the considered view that the manner in which the Corporation proceeded on this aspect was clearly unsustainable, taints the recruitment exercise irretrievably and cannot possibly be accorded a judicial imprimatur.
H. VOCATIONAL CERTIFICATES/DIPLOMAS AND THE REGULATORY REGIME
It becomes relevant to note that the field of computer education and the study of basic computer concepts is not wholly unregulated. NIELIT is a society functioning under the aegis of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology of the Union Government. It has not only framed guidelines and norms for registration of institutes as facilitation centres but has also put in place detailed guidelines for approval and accreditation of institutions which may be desirous of administering programmes which would culminate in the grant of a CCC Certificate. These guidelines and norms in detail formulate the criteria for grant of permission to establish institutes for the conduct of IT Literacy courses as also for the registration and accreditation of institutions as facilitation centres. The extracts of these Guidelines read thus:
"2. Guidelines for grant of permission to institutes for the conduct of IT Literacy courses viz. BCC and CCC of the NIELIT
2.1 Applying for the grant of permission: The interested institutes that fall under any of the category as laid out in the Chapter B of the SOP and fulfil the eligibility criteria may apply for the grant of permission for the conduct of the IT Literacy courses of NIELIT viz. BCC and CCC in the prescribed format along with the processing fee and the affidavit. The template for the affidavit is at Annexure (i).
2.2 Processing fee to be submitted while applying for permission to NIELIT: The fee structure (non-refundable) for processing fee is given below:
Category
Purpose / Type of processing fee
Processing fee
(in `)
Approved Institutes of NIELIT accredited for NIELIT Courses (O/A/B/C)
Fresh Submission (3 years) /
**Continuation of permission (2 years)
3,000/-
Institutes other than NIELIT Accredited Institutes viz. Facilitation centres, schools/colleges etc.
Fresh Submission (3 years) /
**Continuation of permission (2 years)
6,000/-
ITIs/ITCs*
Fresh Submission
(3 years)
-
Approved Institutes of NIELIT accredited for
NIELIT Courses (O/A/B/C)
Renewal
(2 years)
1,500/-
Institutes other than NIELIT Accredited Institutes viz. Facilitation centres, schools/colleges etc.
Renewal
(2 years)
3,000/-
ITIs/ITCs*
Renewal
-
* The ITIs/ITCs are applying for grant of permission to conduct BCC as DGE&T has made BCC certificate as one of the mandatory approved IT literacy courses for ITIs/ITCs trainees.
** For Institutes that already hold valid permission for the conduct of CCC and BCC as on date i.e. March 21, 2013.
Note:
a) The processing fee will be required to be submitted in the form of demand draft made in favour of NIELIT payable at Delhi.
b) The processing fee is non-refundable.
The ITIs/ITCs can apply for grant of permission for the conduct of CCC by applying under the category of "schools/colleges" as laid out in SOP and the fee will be charged as tabulated above. Also, any institution can apply for registration as Facilitation Centre for the conduct of CCC and BCC, if it fulfils the laid out norms. However, an institution, at one point of time can hold only one status of permission in respect of CCC and BCC i.e. if any institute already holds permission for the conduct of CCC and BCC under one category and is applying for permission under another category; it is required to surrender its previous permission to conduct of CCC and BCC.
2.3 Validity of the permission granted to institutes: After careful scrutiny of the application submitted by the institute, the Institutes that fulfil the eligibility criteria for the grant of permission for CCC and BCC are initially granted permission. The permission that is initially granted to the institute would be valid for a period of 03 years from the date of issue of the permission letter.
2.4 Rejection of application: After scrutiny, if it is found that an institute that did not fulfil the eligibility criteria, the application of that institute shall be rejected. The processing fee submitted by the institute will be forfeited. Such institutes may apply again for obtaining the permission for the conduct of BCC and CCC after expiry of three month's time from the date of issue of letter of rejection.
2.5 Deferment of application: After scrutiny, if it is found that, an institute is fulfilling the criteria however, has not submitted the application in completion or seal/signature is missing or any other minor error; will be put under the category of deferred cases. Such institutes will be given a month's time to submit the complete documents. In case, an institute fails to submit the complete documents as communicated to it, the application of the institute will be rejected and the processing fee submitted by the institute will be forfeited.
2.6 Process after expiry of validity: After expiry of the validity, the permission can be renewed, if an institute fulfil the laid out criteria for the renewal. The renewal of permission granted to the institute shall be valid for 02 years.
After expiry of the validity, in case the institute did not fulfil the laid out criteria for the renewal, the permission of the institute will be withdrawn. Such institute may submit fresh application for grant of permission after 03 months from the expiry of the date of validity.
During the time gap wherein the validity of permission of an institute is expired and it is under renewal analysis, the institute will bear the valid status with legend as "Under Renewal Process". As it may happen that, certain institutes may not like to get the permission renewed. Such time gap between the expiry of the validity and renewal process shall not exceed 03 months.
4. Citizen's Charter: The tentative timelines for the various activities involved in the entire process are tabulated below:
Activity
Timelines
Processing of application for grant of permission to the prospective institute for the conduct of CCC/BCC
Within 15 days time of the receipt of application
proforma and related documents
Issue of permission letter to institute, granting permission to conduct CCC/BCC course
Within 15 days time of the receipt of application
proforma and related documents
Issue of rejection letter to institute
Within 15 days time of the receipt of application
proforma and related documents
Issue of deferment letter to institute
Within 20 days time of the receipt of application proforma and related documents
Processing of deferment cases
Within 15 days time of the receipt of rectified
application proforma and related documents
Intimation of renewal process to eligible institutes
Within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the
validity
Processing of renewal cases
With 90 days / 03 months from the date of the expiry
of the validity
Issue of grant of renewal letter to institutes
With 90 days / 03 months from the date of the expiry
of the validity
Issue of withdrawal notice to institute, which are not eligible for renewal
Within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the
validity
Issue of withdrawal letter to institutes, which are not eligible for renewal
Within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the
withdrawal notice served to the institute
Issue of withdrawal letter to institutes, that apply for voluntary withdrawal
Within 30 days from the date of receipt of affidavit
from the institute.
The National Knowledge Commission in its Report (2006-2009) to the nation had emphasised the imperative need to revamp the knowledge resources of the nation. It had laid great emphasis on the expanse and depth of human capital of the nation, of which it found 550 million to be below the age of 25. The unique "demographic dividend" it noted offered a tremendous opportunity for a new knowledge oriented paradigm. It also recognised the need to put in place a responsive regulatory and accreditation frame work in the field of vocational training. Its various recommendations have since been realised and implemented as would be evident from the following facts. The Draft Educational Policy 2016-17 again recognised and highlighted the huge demographic dividend possessed by the nation. This was described in paragraph 4.8 as follows:
" 4.8 Skills in Education and Employability
While the youth population is fast shrinking with higher dependency ratios in the developed world, India is one of the youngest nations in the world with more than 54 percent of its total population below 25 years of age. It is estimated that there will be 104.62 million fresh entrants to the workforce by 2022 who will need to be skilled. However, institutional arrangements to support technical and vocational education programmes remain quite inadequate.
Formally linking the development of skills in vocational fields, and bringing an academic equivalence to vocational accomplishments with avenues for horizontal and vertical mobility of students has been attempted only recently. To enhance employability, a blend of education and skills is essential for individual growth and economic development. Fostering dignity and social acceptability to high quality vocational training needs increased attention.
The following policy initiatives will be taken::
1. Skill development programmes in school and higher education system will be reoriented not only for gainful employment of our students but also help them develop entrepreneurial skills.
2. As envisaged in the National Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Policy 2015 skill development programmes will be integrated in 25% of the schools and higher education institutions.
3. A detailed plan for the creation of skill schools for improving employment opportunities for secondary school students in special focus districts will be prepared.
4. The present skill based programmes at secondary, higher and technical education will be integrated through NSQF with the mainstream education to facilitate greater social acceptability as well as vertical and horizontal mobility. Institutional mechanism will be created for certification of skills through multiple entry and exit options, credit bank system, institutional collaboration for credit transfer, National Occupational Standards based delivery of skills for national recognition and outcome based assessment.
5. No mechanism for assessment and Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) has been developed so far. To overcome this gap, the Government will, within a year, endeavour to develop a mechanism to assess and certify such skills and competencies and facilitate the entry of those who have no formal education and training but have acquired the skills without any certification for possession of those skills.
6. Joint certificates by the Sector Skill Council and the School/College authorities to help students take up wage-employment or start their own enterprise."
This draft policy also lays emphasis on the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and its adoption in education across all levels and domains of learning. Pursuant to the decision of the Cabinet Committee on Skill Development, the National Skills Qualification Framework (NSQF) came to be notified on 27 December 2013. The NSQF is tasked with the formulation of national principles in recognising skill proficiency and competency at different levels. It has put in place a detailed regimen providing for multiple entry and exit options between vocational education and skill training technical education. This formulation of the NSQF is itself based upon the "National Policy on Skilled Development, 2009" which recommended the need for development of the National Qualification Frame Work that would transcend general and vocational education and training. This was a major policy initiative undertaken by the Union Government to put in place a codified framework for recognition and accreditation of skills as also to stimulate and support reforms in skill development and the formulation of national standards and acceptable qualifications. This initiative noted the lack of uniformity associated with different qualifications across institutions. It also noted the rise of issues relating to establishing equivalence of certificates, diplomas/degrees in different parts of the country. It is to overcome such issues connected with vocational training and education that the NSQF has proceeded to formulate the "National Occupational Standards (NOS)" and "Curriculum Packages" so as to reform the field of vocational education and training in a comprehensive fashion. These initiatives of the Union Government have also seen the establishment of the National Skill Development Agency which is charged with the approval and notification of National Occupation Standards, formulation of Curriculum Packages and to map existing certificates, diplomas/degrees and all the courses available in the sector. The accreditation and recognition process of qualifications is set forth in its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Volume 2
This initiative of the Ministry of Human Resources Development has also seen the establishment of the "National Vocational Education Qualifications Framework (NVEQF)" which is charged with the formation of a nationally integrated education and competency based skill framework. It further mandates that all school boards, board of technical education, AICTE and UGC would ensure that the curriculum designed and delivered is in conformity with the national standards prescribed by the NVEQF. It puts in place a mechanism for accreditation of the skill knowledge provider and the development of a National Registry of providers of qualifications. This path breaking policy initiative rolled out in 2009 has also seen the establishment of the National Quality Assurances Framework (NQAF). Dealing with the subject of accreditation of training and educational institutions it recognised the need for the formulation of the NQAF so as to ensure the quality of education training and skill programmes. It lays down the benchmarks or quality criteria which different organisations involved in education and training, must meet in order to be accredited by the competent authority. The process of accreditation follows the procedure laid down below:
The creation of the National Qualifications Register under the NQAF and NVEQF initiative is described by the NSDA on its website as follows:
"National Qualifications Register (NQR)7
The National Qualifications Register is the official national public record of all qualifications aligned to NSQF levels, qualification pathways and accrediting authorities. It gives learners and other users of qualifications access to all the qualifications registered and currently on offer. The NSQF Register will be available on this web portal and regularly updated and the NSQF Notification proposes for an extension of the Register which allows every institution offering an NSQF-aligned qualification to enter details of its training programs and keep them updated on the portal.
The Register is designed to be of use to learners, employers, awarding bodies, training providers, schools, colleges, government agencies and their partners. It will facilitate access to and retrieval of information on all qualifications in the NSQF through a full search facility.
The process for including a qualification in the NSQF will involve the qualification development body submitting a completed Qualification File to NSDA for evaluation and approval by the NSQC.
Structure
The information about qualifications which is brought together in the Qualification File and recorded in the National Qualifications Register will allow learners and employers to understand the detail of the qualification, especially the outcomes which are assessed, how they are assessed and how this is quality assured, and the opportunities for employment, advancement or access to further stages of education and training which the qualifications offer.Bodies awarding qualifications in the NSQF will publish further information of this kind to ensure transparency.
The Register will allow searches, for example, search for:
Qualifications (by title, type, occupation/sector, job role, level)
Component of qualification (by title, type, occupation, job role, level)
Occupational sector/Discipline
Maintaining the Register
The National Qualifications Register will have different kinds and levels of access. Access for the public will be read-only access to the information about the qualifications."
The above discussion would establish that there is in place a codified regulatory regime for conferring recognition to certificates, accreditation to institutes working in the field of vocational education. The Qualifications Register recognises the CCC as a valid pan-India qualification granted only by NIELIT or its accredited or recognised centres. It would be therefore wholly incorrect to assume or accept the suggestion of the respondents that the field of computer literacy and the grant of certificates and diplomas in respect thereof is unregulated or that in view thereof any and every certificate could be accepted.
I. WHETHER AN UNRECOGNISED QUALIFICATION CAN BE ACCEPTED IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
In todays time it is well recognised that knowledge is the new capital. The several government initiatives noticed above are all aimed towards fulfilling the aspirations of millions and realising the true potential of the demographic dividend with which our nation is imbued. The creation of impeccable education and knowledge standards standards is a sin qua non for us to transcend to a knowledge economy. This goal has found constitutional acceptance and is embodied in Articles 21A and 46 of the Constitution. The seminal constitutional amendment which led to the inclusion and amendment of these articles in the Constitution, the promulgation of the RTE Act, the creation of apex bodies such as NCTE, AICTE, UGC coupled with the new impetus conferred on vocational training as evidenced by the NSQF and NVEQF initiatives are all evidence of the avowed objective of educating the citizen and preparing him for the challenges raised by the new world order.
Knowledge and education enable an individual to transcend and overcome poverty, destitution, discrimination. It is the most significant means towards the empowerment of an individual. An education which equips, enables and empowers cannot but be of a recognisable standard and quality. The creation of structures such as NSQF, NVEQF, the Qualifications Register under the aforementioned initiatives are all aimed towards the formulation and grant of qualifications which are of a nationally and even internationally acceptable standard. Judicial notice can be taken of the mushrooming and exponential growth of training institutes, coaching centres, computer education centres and other like centres which impart education. While this Court does not intend to nor should it be understood to be critical of the functioning or existence of such non formal centres of learning, it also cannot grant a seal of approval to centres which churn out certificates without adherence to a particular recognised and accepted level or standard of instruction. The exposition on NSQF, NVEQF was necessitated in order to emphasise the recognition of the need for the stipulation and formulation of minimum standards in education and vocational training. The dilation on this aspect was required to underline and highlight that there does exist a codified policy dealing with and regulating the grant of degrees/diplomas/certificates of learning and vocational qualification. NIELIT Guidelines evidence a stated and well articulated procedure for establishment, recognition and accreditation of centres of learning and education in computer concepts. It would therefore be incorrect to accept the broad and unsubstantiated contention advanced by the respondents that there is no regulation of computer education at all or that any and every certificate issued by an organisation or entity would suffice. Acceptance of such a submission would clearly be regressive of the existing policy measures adopted by the Union Government to standardise the level of instruction and grant of certificates in vocational education.
Although Sri Mishra contended that a CCC certificate can be granted by any organisation, this was not backed by any material or evidence. In fact and to the contrary it appears on the basis of the material placed before this Court that a CCC certificate is granted only by NIELIT or centres recognised or accredited to it.
The validity of the submission of the respondents that any certificate irrespective of whether issued by a recognised body or not can be tested from another angle also. But before the Court proceeds to undertake this enquiry, it would be apposite to pose the following question- What are the quintessential or indisputable elements of "equal opportunity"?
Equal opportunity in matters of public employment or service would necessarily and on a fundamental plane envisage a level playing field, a known and recognised eligibility criteria, the prescription of a standardised educational qualification, a fair and transparent selection process. Both eligibility criteria and standardised educational qualification would entail the prescription of a recognised minimum educational qualification and if thought appropriate the acceptance of a qualification equivalent thereto. If the above factors be the intrinsic features of the right of "equal opportunity", it cannot possibly contemplate the acceptance of an unrecognised qualification or degree/diploma/certificate. An unrecognised qualification or a certificate of such a qualification cannot confer upon the holder thereof acceptability or legitimacy. A qualification conferred by a body which is neither authorised nor recognised either in law or by an established procedure cannot be considered an acceptable qualification. It would be wholly unfair to place the holder of a recognised qualification on the same pedestal as one who does not possess one. There could possibly be no greater evidence of invidious discrimination.
This Court is of the considered view that a recognised qualification must be recognised to be an integral facet of Article 16 and consequently of the right of "equal opportunity". It is accordingly declared as such. Acceptance of certificates of doubtful validity or dubious credibility would be clearly violative of Article 16. The submission therefore that any certificate granted by any organisation irrespective of whether it is recognised as per established norms should be accepted is untenable and liable to be rejected outright. The acceptance of this proposition would have deleterious consequences and unleash pernicious possibilities.
The Court additionally bears in mind that the selections in question were for recruitment to a public service, a service in and under a corporation of the State. Certificates and diplomas issued by organisations which this Court chooses to describe as "sweatshop centers" which have no recognition or approval cannot be accepted as rendering a holder thereof eligible for employment in public service. An incumbent aspiring to enter public service or a corporation of the State must possess qualifications which are recognised or capable of being recognised in law. This because of the very nature of the employment being sought. After all, the incumbent and others like him in public service are the sinews of the organ which we call the State. On them is placed the burden and obligation to ensure the well being of the citizen, to secure the welfare of the people. A member of such a service must necessarily be possessed of certain core qualifications of a particular standard. Dealing with the issue of public service and employment in the context of appointments having been obtained on the basis of false caste certificates, the Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director FCI & others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira8 and others made the following significant and eloquent observations which would ring true even in the present case and guide the Court in dealing with such issues. The Supreme Court noted:-
"77. Service under the Union and the States, or for that matter under the instrumentalities of the State subserves a public purpose. These services are instruments of governance. Where the State embarks upon public employment, it is under the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 to follow the principle of equal opportunity. Affirmative action in our Constitution is part of the quest for substantive equality. Available resources and the opportunities provided in the form of public employment are in contemporary times short of demands and needs. Hence the procedure for selection, and the prescription of eligibility criteria has a significant public element in enabling the State to make a choice amongst competing claims. The selection of ineligible persons is a manifestation of a systemic failure and has a deleterious effect on good governance. Firstly, selection of a person who is not eligible allows someone who is ineligible to gain access to scarce public resources. Secondly, the rights of eligible persons are violated since a person who is not eligible for the post is selected. Thirdly, an illegality is perpetrated by bestowing benefits upon an imposter undeservingly. These effects upon good governance find a similar echo when a person who does not belong to a reserved category passes of as a member of that category and obtains admission to an educational institution. Those for whom the Constitution has made special provisions are as a result ousted when an imposter who does not belong to a reserved category is selected. The fraud on the constitution precisely lies in this. Such a consequence must be avoided and stringent steps be taken by the Court to ensure that unjust claims of imposters are not protected in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142. The nation cannot live on a lie. Courts play a vital institutional role in preserving the rule of law. The judicial process should not be allowed to be utilised to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve the benefits which have accrued to an imposter on the specious plea of equity. Once the legislature has stepped in, by enacting Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, the power under Article 142 should not be exercised to defeat legislative prescription. The Constitution Bench in Milind spoke on 28 November 2000. The state law has been enforced from 18 October 2001. Judicial directions must be consistent with law. Several decisions of two judge benches noticed earlier, failed to take note of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001. The directions which were issued under Article 142 were on the erroneous inarticulate premise that the area was unregulated by statute. Shalini noted the statute but misconstrued it.
91. Medical education is what middle-class parents across the length and breadth of the county aspire for their children (whether this will continue to be so in future is a moot question). There is intense competition for a limited number of under-graduate, post-graduate and super-speciality seats. This can furnish no justification for recourse to unfair means including adopting a false claim to belong to the reserved category. The fault - lines of our system, be it in education, health or law, are that its lethargy and indolence furnish incentives for the few who choose to break the rules to gain an unfair advantage. In such a situation, the court as a vital institution of democratic governance must be firm in sending out a principled message that there is no incentive other than for behaviour compliant with rules and deviance will meet severe reprimands of the law." (emphasis supplied)
The views expressed by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Balaram highlighting the concepts of "substantive equality", the recognition of "limited opportunities" all bid us to hold that in matters of public employment the processes undertaken must be strictly tested on the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has aptly described public services as "instruments of governance". This clearly underpins the conclusion arrived at by this Court that there can be no entry in public services on the strength of unrecognised qualifications. This Court therefore finds itself unable to accept the submission that an unrecognised qualification or for that matter a certificate issued by an organisation which is not recognised or acknowledged by law can be accepted in recruitment to a public service or in an organisation which is State as understood in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution.
CONCLUSIONS
In the end, the Court records the following conclusions:-
1. A recognised qualification is an essential facet of Article 16 of the Constitution.
2. No rights can be recognised in a candidate aspiring to enter public service on the strength of an unrecognised qualification or one granted by an institution which is not conferred the authority to grant the same in accordance with law.
3. The qualification as prescribed by the respondents does not merit interference at the behest of the petitioners.
4. The decision of the Board of Directors of the Corporation dated 23 November 2015 was an act of ratification and therefore does not merit interference.
5. The Commission failed to undertake any enquiry in respect of equivalence of qualifications. It undertook a wholly perfunctory exercise and that too prompted only by the interim directions of this Court.
6. Even in this exercise no accepted or legally sustainable norms were applied to adjudge the equivalence of certificates.
7. The equivalence of qualifications cannot be left to depend or rest upon a self certification of candidates.
8. No certificate can possibly be accorded equivalence unless an enquiry is addressed towards its course content and syllabus.
9. None of the candidates holding other than CCC certificates were shown to hold qualifications recognisable in law. Their inclusion in the select list has clearly tainted the recruitment exercise. It has resulted in the induction of candidates who were not entitled to be selected or offered appointment.
10. Since their inclusion in the select list is invalid and would consequently merit the select list being redrawn, the petitioners are not liable to be non suited on the basis of the cut off marks prescribed by the Commission.
Accordingly and in light of the above discussion and the conclusions recorded above, the select list prepared by the respondents is rendered unsustainable and must in consequence be set aside.
The writ petitions preferred by the non selected candidates are therefore allowed to the extent indicated below. The Court negatives the challenge to the decision of the Board of the Corporation dated 23 November 2015 and the condition of eligibility contained in the two advertisements. All interim orders operating on the writ petitions shall stand discharged in order to enable the Commission to proceed in the matter in light of the directions being issued herein after.
Writ Petition No. 18129 of 2017 shall stand disposed of in light of the above and the directions issued herein.
The select list drawn up pursuant to the advertisements in question insofar as it includes candidates who do not hold a CCC certificate conferred or recognised by NIELIT is quashed. The respondents shall in consequence redraw the select list restricting it to candidates who hold a recognised CCC certificate or a qualification recognised in law as being equivalent thereto. The Commission shall as a result of the above, reframe the merit list and publish the results thereof afresh. All consequences to follow.
Order date: 7.10.2017
LA/-
