Summary
The Court restored directions to redraw a Technician Grade-II selection list after scrutinising computer qualifications claimed as equivalent to the prescribed CCC certificate. Candidates’ self-declarations could not replace the recruiting authority’s assessment of equivalence. Participation in recruitment did not bar a challenge to inclusion of ineligible candidates, and representative impleadment sufficed for the systemic challenge. No direction was given to fill subsequent vacancies.
Issues
- What CCC certificate and equivalent qualification the advertisement required.
- Whether self-certification could establish equivalence without the recruiting authority’s scrutiny.
- Whether participation in selection or non-joinder of every selected candidate barred the challenge.
- Whether subsequent vacancies required appointment or accommodation of additional candidates.
Held
- The advertisement’s CCC certificate meant the certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. The alternative of an equivalent computer qualification permitted other genuinely equivalent qualifications; it did not remove the prescribed standard. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51)
- Self-attestation of certificate copies was distinct from self-certification of equivalence. Scrutiny was the employer’s obligation, requiring appropriate criteria and attention to course content; no such exercise had preceded the original selection. (¶¶ 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65)
- The Single Judge’s directions preserved candidates holding CCC certificates while requiring scrutiny of claimed equivalents. The revised exercise included qualifications treated as equivalent under adopted government guidelines; restoring the original unverified list was unjustified. (¶¶ 65, 66, 67, 68)
- The challenge concerned inclusion of persons lacking essential qualifications, rather than the advertised criteria, so participation did not preclude it. Given the systemic challenge and impleadment of selected candidates in a representative capacity, joinder of every selected candidate was unnecessary. (¶¶ 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76)
- Whether subsequent vacancies should be filled through the earlier recruitment, including claims for accommodation based on prior service, was for the Corporation to consider lawfully. Candidates remained free to represent; no appointment direction was warranted. (¶¶ 77, 78)
Result
All appeals allowed; the Division Bench judgment of 9 May 2019 was set aside and the Single Judge judgment of 7 October 2017 restored. No directions issued to fill subsequent vacancies; representations to the Corporation remained open. Parties to bear their own costs.