Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement of Terminated UPPCL Employees, Citing Misinterpretation of Eligibility Criteria and Violation of Recruitment Advertisement

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the applications, ordering the reinstatement of applicants who appeared in the select list of July 14, 2015, and who had obtained the CCC certificate at the time of the interview. The Court found that the respondent-Corporation erred in terminating these candidates, asserting that those with the requisite qualifications at the interview stage were entitled to be considered. The Court clarified that although these reinstated employees would not receive back wages, they would retain seniority and receive continuity of service along with consequential benefits.

Facts

The dispute originated from the termination of candidates who had been appointed as Technician Grade-II (Electrical) with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). These candidates, selected in 2015, were dismissed after the Allahabad High Court’s order in 2017, which mandated the removal of candidates without a CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT or an equivalent qualification by the interview date.

The 2011 amendment to the recruitment criteria required candidates to hold a CCC certificate or equivalent qualification. UPPCL’s 2014 advertisement, however, mandated submission of the CCC certificate at the time of the interview. Candidates passed the written exam and were interviewed between December 2014 and July 2015, resulting in a published final selection list. Following a legal challenge by unsuccessful candidates, the Single Judge quashed selections that included uncertified or self-certified candidates, directing a revised list limited to those with verified DOEACC/NIELIT CCC certifications.

Issues

1. Whether candidates who had the CCC certificate at the interview, but not by the application deadline, were eligible for selection.
2. Whether UPPCL’s termination of candidates who obtained the certificate by the interview violated the recruitment guidelines.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners argued that their possession of the CCC certificate by the time of the interview satisfied UPPCL’s eligibility requirements. They contended that the respondent’s interpretation—that candidates must have possessed the certificate by the application deadline—was incorrect and unfairly led to their dismissal.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent-Corporation argued that the CCC certificate must have been obtained by the application deadline to ensure uniformity and compliance with selection standards. They asserted that candidates who did not meet this timeline were ineligible for appointment, justifying the termination actions.

Analysis of the Law

The Court examined the legal standards surrounding qualifications and eligibility, particularly regarding the timing of certification acquisition. The advertisement’s stipulation allowed candidates to submit their CCC certificate at the interview, a requirement later misinterpreted by the respondent as being mandatory by the application deadline.

Precedent Analysis

The Court referred to the judgment of the Single Judge, which underscored the necessity of a recognized qualification and denied rights to candidates with unrecognized certifications or self-certified equivalencies. The Court emphasized that the Single Judge’s directive was aimed only at excluding candidates without the CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT, rather than terminating those who obtained it by the interview.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court reasoned that UPPCL’s termination of candidates possessing the CCC certificate at the interview violated the terms of its own advertisement and ignored the legal standards set forth in the recruitment rules. The Court found that while the Allahabad High Court’s directive did require scrutiny of certifications, it did not mandate termination of candidates who possessed the certificate by the interview date.

Conclusion

The Court directed UPPCL to reinstate the petitioners without back wages but with restored seniority and continuity in service. This decision was based on UPPCL’s misinterpretation of the eligibility criteria, which led to unjustified terminations.

Implications

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s stance on recruitment fairness and the necessity for government corporations to strictly adhere to their own published eligibility criteria. The Court’s reliance on Article 142 underscores the importance of exercising judicial powers to correct administrative oversights that result in unfair employment practices. This decision provides a reference for similar cases where government bodies might misinterpret or retroactively apply eligibility criteria to the detriment of qualified candidates.

Also Read – Supreme Court Overturns Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Excessive Bail Conditions, Declares Directive to Demolish Wall and Surrender Property Keys an Overreach Infringing Civil Rights and Prejudicing Pending Litigation