CCC Certificate Equivalence: Setting Precedent for Future Verifications

In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, a ruling was issued regarding the verification of CCC certificate equivalence for public employment. The case involved a revision of the select list, where candidates without recognized CCC certificates were initially included but later excluded following the High Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court’s judgment now sets a clear precedent for future verifications of qualifications in recruitment processes.

Facts

• The select list drawn up pursuant to the advertisements was quashed as it included candidates without a CCC certificate from NIELIT.
• The revised select list was prepared in accordance with the judgment of the High Court and included only candidates with recognized CCC certificates.
• The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017 and dismissed all writ petitions.
• The Division Bench approved the reliance on self-certification by candidates for computer literacy equivalent to CCC, which was questioned by the appellants.
• The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 9026 and Civil Appeal No.9027 were included in the revised select list after the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
• The Division Bench directed the Commission to reframe the merit list and publish the results based on self-certification by the candidates regarding equivalence of qualifications.
• The inclusion of candidates without scrutiny of equivalent qualifications was criticized by the Division Bench.
• The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
• The Corporation and Commission proceeded to redraw the select list following the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
• The Division Bench mentioned qualifications required for the candidates and set aside the direction of learned Single Judge regarding exclusion based on missing CCC certificates.
• CCC Certificate is a mandatory qualification for the post of Technician Grade II as per the advertisement.
• The select list published on 14.07.2015 did not include the petitioners who sought quashing of the list and revision of it.
• The Managing Director of the Corporation substituted the computer qualification requirement to ‘Course on Computer Concept (CCC) Certificate or its equivalent.’
• The select list was revised on 21.06.2018 which resulted in exclusion of around 903 candidates.
• The petitioners argued that only certificates from DOEACC/NIELIT are equivalent to CCC Certificate.
• The appointments made by the respondent were to abide by the final decision of the writ petition.
• The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions after considering the arguments and affidavits filed.
• Candidates without CCC Certificate or equivalent were deleted from the select list.
• Certificates obtained after the application deadline were deemed ineligible for making the candidate eligible.
• A written examination was conducted on 08.11.2014 followed by interviews in December 2014/January 2015.

Also Read: Judgment on Reinstatement of Junior Accounts Clerk Position

Issue

• Consideration of what the ‘Course on Computer Concept’ (CCC) Certificate is and its relevance to the advertisement dated 06.09.2014.
• Examination of whether the advertisement allowed for self-certification by candidates for equivalence to CCC certificate, and if such self-certification was deemed sufficient for qualifying candidates.
• Determination of whether specific criteria or guidelines were established by the Corporation or Commission for assessing equivalence to CCC certificate.

Also Read: Case Summary: Supreme Court Judgment on Limitation Act Override

Arguments

• Writ petitioners did not challenge the advertisement or qualifications mentioned in it.
• The requirement of CCC certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT was done away with in view of the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2013.
• The select list was challenged without impleading the selected candidates, leading to a violation of natural justice.
• The Commission adopted guidelines under the Government order dated 03.05.2016 for equivalence of CCC certificates.
• A committee was constituted post the judgment of the Single Judge to decide on the criteria for equivalence of CCC certificates.
• The Division Bench rightly set aside the direction of the Single Judge to exclude candidates without CCC certificate.
• Several candidates in the select list were later found ineligible and their candidature was cancelled.
• The High Court restored the select list dated 14.07.2015.
• Challenges to the select list were made by writ petitioners post their participation in the selection process.
• The Division Bench commented on the absence of impleaded selected candidates and upheld the actions of the Commission.
• ITI certificates and other qualifications were not considered equivalent to a CCC certificate by the Division Bench.
• The High Court upheld the revised select list which excluded candidates without equivalent computer certificates.
• Candidates who challenged their exclusion did not possess CCC certificate and were rightly excluded.
• The High Court refused to entertain a petition after a candidate found his name missing from the merit list.
• The Division Bench erred in accepting self-certification as equivalent to CCC certificate.
• The revised merit list post the Single Judge’s judgment was accepted by the Corporation and the Commission.
• Large numbers of candidates submitted certificates from unrecognized private institutes, which were not equivalent to a CCC certificate.
• The Single Judge directed the Commission to verify the equivalence of certificates and redraw the select list accordingly post the judgment dated 07.10.2017.

Also Read: Interpretation of Lease Agreement and Compulsory Registration

Analysis

• The Division Bench noted the issue of equivalence was left to the candidate’s self-declaration only.
• The Division Bench erroneously held that self-certification by candidates of equivalence to CCC certificate was sufficient for eligibility.
• The Division Bench’s decision was based on the premise that computer literacy is equivalent to letter literacy, making self-certification acceptable.
• The Division Bench did not consider the need for scrutiny of computer qualifications by the recruiting agency/employer as mandated by the advertisement.
• The requirement for CCC certificate or equivalent computer qualification was clearly specified in the advertisement, indicating the need for proper verification.
• The employer’s reliance on self-certification was deemed inappropriate and may lead to the participation of ineligible candidates.
• The Single Judge emphasized the necessity of scrutiny by the employer to determine the equivalence of qualifications claimed by candidates.
• The Single Judge highlighted the delay in the Corporation and Commission’s action to establish equivalence only after a court directive.
• The Single Judge found that CCC certificates are granted only by NIELIT, formerly known as DOEACC Society.
• The Single Judge clarified that equivalence determination must be handled by competent authorities and cannot be left to self-declaration by candidates.
• Candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared unsuccessful.
• Candidates who consciously participate in the selection process cannot later challenge the method of selection or its outcome.
• Selection of ineligible persons is impermissible and violates the principle of equal opportunity in public employment.
• The law on the subject has been well-established in various judgments, emphasizing the importance of eligibility criteria and the participation in the selection process.
• Candidates who take a calculated risk by participating in the selection process cannot complain about unfairness after not being selected.
• Once a candidate appears at an examination without objection, they cannot later claim unfairness in the process.
• Including candidates in the select list who claim equivalent qualifications when they do not meet the specified criteria is illegal and unjust.
• Existing vacancies should be addressed by the Corporation
• No direction needed for filling existing vacancies with 2014 recruitment
• Candidates in select list from 14.07.2015 were appointed in August 2015 and worked for about 3 years
• The candidates’ prior service may be sympathetically considered by the Court

Decision

• Allowance of all appeals
• Setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench dated 09.05.2019
• Restoring the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017
• Parties to bear their own costs
• Reframing the merit list and publishing the results afresh
• Granting candidates the liberty to represent to the Corporation for a decision in accordance with the law

Case Title: MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Case Number: C.A. No.-009026-009026 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement