The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection of Technician Grade-II (Trainee) Electrical candidates by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, observing that a Central Bureau of Investigation probe cannot be ordered routinely on the basis of unsupported allegations.

The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that a party seeking a CBI investigation must place sufficient pleadings and supporting material before the Court. In the present case, the petitioners had neither lodged a First Information Report nor disclosed any factual basis warranting an investigation by the central agency.

Buy Now: E-Magzine On Landmark Supreme Court Judgements Under Limitation Act Till 2025 : PART-1

The Court also found that the petitioners had failed to secure the cut-off marks prescribed for the General Category and had suppressed the fact that some of them had earlier approached the Allahabad High Court seeking substantially the same relief.

The ruling was delivered in Vinit Kumar & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 123 of 2013. The judgment is cited as 2026 INSC 997.

Challenge to recruitment for 2,974 technician posts

The dispute arose from an advertisement issued by UPPCL on March 4, 2011 for filling 2,974 posts of Technician Grade-II (Trainee) Electrical in electricity distribution corporations functioning under UPPCL.

Of the advertised vacancies, 1,778 posts were allocated to the General Category, while 353, 128 and 715 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, respectively.

Candidates were required to possess a two-year national or state-level trade certificate in the electrician trade and to have passed high school or an equivalent examination with Science and Mathematics. They were also required to produce a Course on Computer Concepts certificate issued by the Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses at the time of the interview.

The written examination was conducted on August 7, 2011 and was attended by 13,576 candidates. A total of 6,288 candidates, including the petitioners, qualified for the interview stage. The interviews were conducted between November 28 and December 28, 2011.

The selection result was initially declared on May 21, 2012. Several candidates, however, could not produce the required DOEACC certificates at the interview stage. Following representations, UPPCL extended the deadline for producing the certificates on multiple occasions, ultimately allowing their submission until July 31, 2012.

Allahabad High Court ordered revision of select list

Several unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection before the Allahabad High Court. They principally argued that candidates who had produced their DOEACC certificates belatedly, as well as candidates whose results had been withheld due to non-production of the certificates, had been wrongly included in the select list.

A Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on August 30, 2012. In an intra-court appeal, however, a Division Bench held that relaxation of the stipulated qualification conditions was impermissible when the recruitment advertisement itself did not provide for such relaxation.

The Division Bench consequently ruled that only candidates who had submitted their DOEACC certificates before March 31, 2012 could be included in the select list. UPPCL was directed to remove candidates who had submitted their certificates after that date and declare the result afresh.

In compliance with this direction, UPPCL issued a revised selection result on January 20, 2013, followed by an appointment-cum-allotment list on January 30, 2013.

The petitioners thereafter approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the quashing of the revised result and consequential appointments. They also sought a fresh selection exercise and a CBI investigation into the alleged manipulation of recruitment records.

Petitioners alleged manipulation and reservation violations

The petitioners contended that only the first extension granted for submitting the DOEACC certificates was valid and that subsequent extensions were unauthorised.

They further alleged that although only 715 posts were reserved for the OBC category, as many as 1,527 OBC candidates were selected. According to them, this resulted in a violation of the applicable reservation policy.

It was also argued that only 2,293 candidates had submitted the required certificates within the permitted period, whereas 2,836 candidates were ultimately selected.

The petitioners relied upon a list filed by UPPCL before the Supreme Court in October 2018 and alleged that there were several mismatches between the names and roll numbers appearing in that list and the selection list published on UPPCL’s website in January 2013.

They also claimed that certain candidates who had secured marks below the applicable cut-off were appointed. On this basis, they requested the Court to quash the revised result, direct preparation of a fresh select list and order an independent CBI investigation.

Petitioners did not meet General Category cut-off

UPPCL opposed the petition and maintained that the petitioners belonged to the General Category, for which the cut-off was 98.25 marks. Since they had obtained marks below the cut-off, their names did not appear in the revised selection list.

The corporation explained that the petitioners could not compare themselves with candidates selected under horizontal reservation categories such as dependants of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen. The cut-offs for those categories were 65.75 and 80.25 marks, respectively.

UPPCL also rejected the contention that the number of OBC candidates exceeded the advertised reservation. It submitted that reserved-category candidates who secured marks higher than the last selected General Category candidate were entitled to be appointed against open-category seats. Such candidates could not be counted against the quota reserved for their respective categories.

Earlier Supreme Court order confined scope of scrutiny

The Supreme Court noted that, under an order passed on January 30, 2019, the petitioners had confined their claim to the contention that they stood higher in merit than candidates who had been selected and appointed.

The Court had consequently directed UPPCL to disclose the marks and ranking of the petitioners and explain why they had not been appointed if their claim of higher merit was correct.

The Bench observed that even after UPPCL filed the list of selected candidates in October 2018, the petitioners did not raise the alleged irregularities and discrepancies now sought to be relied upon.

The Court held that its January 2019 order was binding on the parties and confined the scope of the proceedings to the petitioners’ claim that candidates lower in merit had been appointed.

UPPCL subsequently filed an affidavit categorically stating that the petitioners had failed to obtain the General Category cut-off marks. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners did not controvert this assertion either in their written submissions or during oral arguments.

“It follows, axiomatically, that no candidate less meritorious than the petitioners has been selected,” the Court observed.

Suppression of earlier High Court proceedings

The Supreme Court further found that petitioner numbers 8 to 18 had earlier filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking the same relief.

That petition was disposed of on November 9, 2012 in terms of the Division Bench judgment concerning the DOEACC certificate deadline. However, this previous round of litigation was not disclosed in the writ petition filed before the Supreme Court.

The petitioners also failed to state whether the High Court order had subsequently been challenged through a special leave petition.

Holding the non-disclosure to be material, the Bench observed that suppression of these facts was sufficient, by itself, to disentitle the concerned petitioners from obtaining relief.

Long-serving selected candidates cannot be displaced

The Court also took account of the considerable passage of time since the recruitment process. The selected candidates had already received appointment letters and had been working on their posts for a substantial period.

The Bench held that their appointments could not be disturbed at such a belated stage, particularly when the selected candidates had not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings.

CBI investigation is an extraordinary remedy

Dealing with the request for a CBI probe, the Supreme Court reiterated that constitutional courts possess wide powers under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. Those powers are, however, subject to self-imposed limitations.

Referring to its Constitution Bench decision in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, the Court said a direction for a CBI investigation should not be issued as a matter of routine or merely because a party has made allegations against the local police.

The Court said that pleadings and material sufficient to justify a CBI inquiry must be placed on record before such an exceptional direction can be issued.

In the present case, the petitioners had not lodged an FIR or made any allegation against the local police. More importantly, their writ petition did not contain averments explaining the factual basis for entrusting the matter to the CBI.

The Bench consequently refused to order an investigation into the alleged manipulation of recruitment records.

Finding no merit in the challenge, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of all pending applications. No order as to costs was passed.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: E-Way Bill Generated After Interception Is an Afterthought: GSTAT Upholds S. 129 Penalty