1

NON -REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.1961 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31539 of 2012 ]

SANJAY K. DIXIT  AND OTHERS       .... Appellants

Versus

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS         ….Respondents

W I T H  

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1962 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 33506 of 2012 ]

JAIPRAKASH    .... Appellant

Versus

THE STATE OF U.P.          ….Respondent

W I T H  

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1963 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8945 of 2013 ]

HARINDER SINGH TOMAR    .... Appellant

Versus

ATUL KUMAR SHARMA          ….Respondent

2

W I T H  

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1964 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9419 of 2013 ]

JAHANGEER KHAN     .... Appellant

Versus

STATE OF U.P.          ….Respondent

W I T H  

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1965 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14853 of 2013 ]

SACHIDANAND PRASAD   .... Appellant

Versus

STATE OF U.P.       ….Respondent

W I T H   

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1966 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22782 of 2013 ]

AJAY  KUMAR     .... Appellant

Versus

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  ….Respondent

3

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1. All the above Appeals pertain to the selection and

appointment  to  the  post  of  Technician  Grade-2

(Apprenticeship  Electrical)  in  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Power

Corporation.  An  advertisement  was  issued  inviting

applications  from  the  eligible  candidates  for  filling  up

2,974  posts  of  Technician  Grade-2  (Apprenticeship

Electrical)  by  the  Electricity  Service  Commission,  Uttar

Pradesh  on  4th March,  2011.   The  eligibility  criteria

according to the said advertisement was that a candidate

should have two years National/State level  professional

certificate  in  Electrician  Trade  with  High  School  from

Board  of  Secondary  Education,  Uttar  Pradesh  or

equivalent with Science and Math subjects.  In addition,

production  of  Course  on  Computer  Concept  (CCC)

certificate  given  by  the  Department  of  Electronics

4

Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC) (hereinafter

referred  to  as  ‘DOEACC  certificate’),  at  the  time  of

interview was  compulsory.   16,712 persons  applied  for

selection to 2,974 posts which were advertised.  Out of

13,576  candidates  who  appeared  in  the  written

examination  conducted  on  7th August,  2011,  6,218

persons  qualified.   5,687  persons  appeared  for  the

interviews  which  were  conducted  from 28th November,

2011  to   28th December,  2011.   A  large  number  of

candidates who attended the interview could not produce

the  DOEACC certificate.   On  the  said  account,  several

representations  were  made  to  the  Chairman  and

Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation wherein

a request was made for extension of time for submitting

the  DOEACC  certificate  and  to  permit  such  of  those

candidates who were found meritorious, to participate in

the interview without submitting the DOEACC certificate.

A  decision  was  taken  by  the  Chairman  and  Managing

Director  of  the  U.P.  Power  Corporation  to  permit

candidates without DOEACC certificate to participate in

the interviews, subject to their submitting the certificate

5

within a period of three months.  However, it was made

clear  that  the  appointment  letters  would  be  issued  to

such candidates only after they submit the certificates.  

2. The  extension  of  time  for  submission  of  DOEACC

certificate expired on 28th March, 2012 and the process of

recruitment  was  conducted.   The  result  could  not  be

declared  due  to  the  ban  on  recruitment  by  the

Government.   Such of those candidates who could not

submit  their  certificates  before  28th March,  2012

approached the Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation

and  requested  for  further  extension.   Pursuant  to  a

decision  taken  by  the  Corporation  on  19th April,  2012,

time  for  submission  of  the  certificate  was  further

extended by three months.   The results of the selection

to  the  posts  of  Technician  Grade-2  (Apprenticeship

Electrical)  were  announced  on  21st May,  2012.

Candidates who did not produce the DOEACC certificate

were informed that they should submit the certificate by

31st July,  2012 failing which their selection would stand

cancelled  automatically.   Unsuccessful  candidates  filed

Writ Petitions challenging the selections that were notified

6

on  21st May, 2012.  The grievance of the Writ Petitioners

was  that  the  select  list  contained  the  names  of

candidates who could not submit the DOEACC certificates

at the time of interview.  They also sought for a direction

to exclude such candidates and publish a revised list.  A

learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ

Petitions.   

3. The learned Single Judge relied upon Rule 45 of the

U.P.  Rajya  Vidyut  Parishad  Parichalkiya  Karmchari  Varg

Sewa Niyamawali,  1995 to hold that the Chairman was

competent to  relax the Rules.   He observed that there

was  nothing  wrong  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  of

relaxation  as  the  Chairman/  Managing  Director  of  the

Corporation  relaxed  the  Rule  after  a  thorough

consideration of several representations made on behalf

of the candidates. The submission made on behalf of the

Writ Petitioners that the relaxation of the Rule could not

have been done after the selection process commenced

and that such endeavour would amount to changing the

rules  of  the  game mid-way,  was  rejected  by  the  High

Court.     The unsuccessful Writ Petitioners preferred an

7

appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge

in which they submitted that the rules for the selection

could not have been altered after the selection process

commenced.  They urged that the advertisement did not

mention anything pertaining to the relaxation.  According

to them, even if the power of relaxation is provided in the

Rules, it is mandatory that the advertisement should also

indicate  the  existence  of  such  power.   It  was  argued

before  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  that

submission  of  DOEACC  certificate  at  the  time  of  the

interview is compulsory according to the Rules and the

advertisement.   Such  of  those candidates  who did  not

produce the certificates were ineligible for appointment

as  Technician  Grade-2  (Apprenticeship  Electrical).   The

Division Bench partly allowed the appeals by holding that

those candidates who submitted the DOEACC certificate

prior to 31st March, 2012 were entitled to be included in

the  select  list.   The  learned  Division  Bench  further

concluded  that  all  candidates  who  produced  the

certificates after  31st March,  2012 were not  eligible for

appointment.   The authorities  were  directed  to  declare

8

the results afresh by deleting the names of candidates

who produced the CCC certificate after 31st March, 2012,

from the select list.  4. By relying on a judgment of this Court in Bedanga

Talukdar  v.  Saifudullah  Khan  &  Ors.1 the  Division

Bench of the High Court held that relaxation of the Rule

was impermissible  as  there  was  no  mention  about  the

relaxation  in  the  advertisement.   However,  the  first

relaxation by which candidates were permitted to submit

the  certificate  before  28th March,  2012  was  upheld  in

larger  public  interest  as  DOEACC  did  not  issue  the

certificate,  for  which  the  candidates  could  not  be

penalized.   

5. Originally, the selection was finalized on the basis of

the  results  announced  on  21st May,  2012  and  the

candidates who submitted certificates till 31st July, 2012

were appointed.   However, by virtue of the judgment of

the  Division  Bench,  candidates  who  produced  their

certificates after 31st March, 2012 were removed from the

service.   Aggrieved  thereby,   they  have  filed  SLPs.

Unsuccessful  candidates  who  did  not  find  place  in  the

1 (2011) 12 SCC 85

9

select list  have also assailed the judgment of the High

Court  as,  according  to  them,  even  the  first  relaxation

given for submission of certificates till 28th March, 2012

was arbitrary and illegal.    

6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioners and the Respondents,  we are of the opinion

that  the  impugned  judgment  does  not  warrant

interference for the reasons given below.   

7. Admittedly, the Rules governing the selection to the

posts  of  Technician  Grade-2  (Apprenticeship  Electrical)

require every candidate to submit a DOEACC certificate

signifying  completion  of  80  hours  CCC  at  the  time  of

interview.   Such  condition  was  made  compulsory.  The

advertisement  also  contained the condition regarding

submission  of  the  certificate  at  the  time  of  interview.

There is no doubt that there exists a power of relaxation

of  any  of  the  Rules  which  could  be  exercised  by  the

Chairman of the Corporation.   It is nobody’s case that the

Chairman/ Managing Director was not competent to relax

the  Rules.   But,  the  submission  made  by  the  learned

counsel  for  the  Writ  Petitioners  is  that  the  relaxation

could not have been done as the advertisement did not

10

mention about a possible relaxation of the Rules.  We find

force in the said submission made on behalf of the Writ

Petitioners as this Court  in  Bedanga Talukdar  (supra)

held as follows: “29.  .. .. .. In our opinion, it is too well settled to  need  any  further  reiteration  that  all appointments to public office have to be made in  conformity  with  Article  14  of  the Constitution  of  India.   In  other  words,  there must  be  no  arbitrariness  resulting  from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore,  the  selection  process  has  to  be conducted  strictly  in  accordance  with  the stipulated selection procedure.  Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement,  the  same  has  to  be scrupulously maintained.  There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement  unless  such  a  power  is specifically reserved.  Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules.  Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it  must  still  be  mentioned  in  the advertisement.  In the absence of such power in the rules,  it  could still  be provided in  the advertisement.   However,  the  power  of relaxation,  if  exercised,  has  to be given due publicity.  This would be necessary to ensure

11

that  those  candidates  who  become  eligible due to  the relaxation,  are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete.  Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”  

  8. We  are  in  respectful  agreement  with  the  above

judgment  of  this  Court.   Exercise  of  the  power  of

relaxation  without  informing  the  candidates  about  the

existence  of  such  power  would  be  detrimental  to  the

interests of others who did not possess the certificate and

did not take part in the selection process.   We are unable

to accept the submission that selection is on the basis of

the performance of the candidates in the written test and

interview  and  that  the  DOEACC  certificate  is  not  an

essential  requirement.   The  Rule  as  well  as  the

advertisement provide for submission of the certificate at

the  time  of  interview,  compulsorily.   The  Rule  further

provides for production of the certificate as an additional

requirement for selection.   The above stipulation in the

Rule as well as the advertisement cannot be ignored.   

12

9. On  the  basis  of  the  said  findings,  the  point  that

remains to be considered is whether the High Court was

right in upholding the relaxation in respect of candidates

who submitted the certificate  before  28th March,  2012.

The High Court took note of the fact that the certificates

were not being issued by DOEACC to candidates who had

already  completed  the  course.   The  learned  Division

Bench of the High Court was of the opinion that there was

a  genuine  problem  and  in  the  interest  of  those

meritorious  candidates  who  could  not  secure  the

certificate  for  no  fault  of  theirs,  they  could  not  be

penalized.    The  High  Court  placed  reliance  on  the

judgment of this Court in Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State

of Assam & Ors.2  to support its view that relaxation can

be done in larger public interest.     10. The question that then arises is  whether the High

Court could have granted such a relief after holding that

the  relaxation  of  the  Rule  could  not  have been made.

The final relief in a case can be different from the  ratio

decidendi.  It was held in  Sanjay Singh & Anr.  v.  U.P.

2  (2009) 3 SCC 227 ¶ 40

13

Public  Service  Commission,  Allahabad  &  Anr.3 as

follows:   “10. … …. Broadly speaking, every judgment of superior courts has three segments, namely, (i) the  facts  and  the  point  at  issue;    (ii)  the reasons for the decision; and (iii) the final order containing  the  decision.  The  reasons  for  the decision or the ratio decidendi is not the final order  containing  the  decision.  In  fact,  in  a judgment  of  this  Court,  though  the  ratio decidendi may point to a particular result, the decision (final order relating to relief) may be different and not a natural consequence of the ratio  decidendi  of  the  judgment.  This  may happen either  on account  of  any subsequent event  or  the  need  to  mould  the  relief  to  do complete justice in the matter. It  is  the ratio decidendi of a judgment and not the final order in the judgment, which forms a precedent. ..”  

11. In  view  of  the  above,  the  conclusion  of  the  High

Court in favour of those candidates who submitted their

certificate before 28th March, 2012 is correct and need not

be interfered with.   

12. The next question is,  whether the candidates who

utilized the 2nd relaxation for submitting their certificates

3 (2007) 3 SCC 720

14

in the extended period, by 31st July, 2012 can be given

the  same  benefit.   We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the

beneficiaries of the   2nd relaxation cannot be said to be

similarly situated to those who produced their certificates

prior to 28th March, 2012.  Pursuant to the declaration of

results on 21st May, 2012, the candidates who submitted

their certificates were appointed.  The Writ Petitions filed,

challenging  the  selection  list  were  dismissed  on  30th

August, 2012.   The impugned judgment passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court, modifying the relief and

extending the benefit of relaxation only in favour of those

candidates  who  submitted  their  certificates  prior  to

28th March, 2012 was delivered on 26th September, 2012

pursuant to  which,  the candidates who submitted their

certificates  after  28th March,  2012,  were removed from

service.  Persons who submitted their certificates prior to

28th March,  2012  have  been  working  continuously  till

date.  It has been stated by the Corporation in the written

note submitted to this Court that recruitment to the post

of  Technician  Grade-2  (Apprenticeship  Electrical)  was

being  done  every  year  from  2013  onwards.   The  last

15

notification  for  appointment  of  Technician  Grade-2

(Apprenticeship Electrical), was issued in January, 2019.

Any relief  of  a relaxation given in favour  of those who

were not diligent in furnishing the certificates prior to 28th

March, 2012 could have an adverse effect on the ongoing

selection process.  There are no posts of the year 2012

which  were  kept  unfilled.   There  is  no  interim  order

reserving  any  posts  of  the  year  2012  in  which  the

candidates who did not submit their certificates prior to

28th March, 2012 and who have been out of service can

be  accommodated.    Another  important  difference

between the first group of persons who were given the

benefit  of  relaxation  subject  to  production  of  the

certificates prior to 28th March, 2012 and the others who

produced the certificates later is that there is no material

on record to suggest there was any further delay on the

part of DOEACC in the issuance of the certificates.  The

very  fact  that  certain  candidates  submitted  their

certificates  prior  to  28th March,  2012  would  show  that

persons who sought further relaxation after 28th March,

2012 were not vigilant.  It is settled law that there is no

16

indefeasible right of appointment on the basis of inclusion

in the select list. None of the candidates in whose favour

relaxation  was  given  have  any  right  to  claim

appointment.  However, we uphold the judgment of the

High  Court  in  favour  of  the  candidates  who submitted

their  certificates  prior  to   28th March,  2012,  to  do

complete justice in the matter.   

13. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the

High Court is upheld and the Civil Appeals are disposed

of.   

               ..................................J.               [ L.  NAGESWARA  RAO ]

 ..................................J.               [ SANJAY  KISHAN  KAUL ]

New Delhi, February 22, 2019.