Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction

Order Date: 16 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Vinit Kumar & others; Respondents – State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary & Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL).
  • Background: UPPCL advertised on 04‑03‑2011 for 2,974 Technician Grade‑2 (Trainee) Electrical posts (1,778 General, 353 SC, 128 ST, 715 OBC). Eligibility required a two‑year trade certificate, high‑school with Science & Maths, and a DOEACC computer‑concept certificate.
  • Selection Process: Written exam on 07‑08‑2011 saw 13,576 candidates; 6,288 qualified for interview (28‑11‑2011 to 28‑12‑2011). Result announced 21‑05‑2012. Candidates lacking DOEACC certificates were given extensions, ultimately up to 31‑07‑2012, after which non‑submission led to cancellation.
  • Legal History: Unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions in the High Court; Single Judge dismissed on 30‑08‑2012. Division Bench on 26‑09‑2012 held that only candidates who submitted DOEACC certificates by 31‑03‑2012 could be selected and ordered a fresh result. UPPCL issued a revised list on 20‑01‑2013 and appointment‑cum‑allotment on 30‑01‑2013. Petitioners filed the present writ on 19‑02‑2013, which was later tagged with Special Leave Petitions.
  • Supreme Court Directions Prior to Judgment: On 14‑08‑2018 the Court noted that only about 1,509 candidates had certificates by 31‑03‑2012 while roughly 2,800 were declared successful, and ordered UPPCL to submit a detailed list (filed on 23‑10‑2018). On 30‑01‑2019 the Court granted UPPCL four weeks to file a counter‑affidavit on marks and ranking, and set a further eight‑week timeline for listing.
  • Submissions: Petitioners, through counsel Prashant Bhushan, argued that extensions beyond the first were unauthorized, OBC reservations were exceeded (1,527 selected vs. 715 seats), and lower‑scoring candidates were appointed. They sought quashing of the 20‑01‑2013 result, a fresh selection, and a CBI investigation. Respondents, through counsel Sunil Kumar Jain, contended that petitioners failed to disclose a related writ (W.P. No. 2749 of 2012) and that petitioners did not meet the General Category cut‑off of 98.25 marks; they also argued that reservation calculations were proper.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioners limited their relief to a claim of higher merit, which the counter‑affidavit did not address. No new allegations regarding the 23‑10‑2018 list were raised. The Court emphasized that orders are binding inter partes until successfully challenged, and the interim order of 30‑01‑2019 therefore bound the petitioners. The counter‑affidavit dated 22‑02‑2019 stated that petitioners failed to secure the required cut‑off marks, a point uncontradicted by the petitioners. The Court also highlighted the non‑disclosure of the earlier writ, deeming it a material suppression that disqualifies the petitioners from relief. Additionally, the appointed candidates have been in post for a considerable time, making disturbance untenable. Regarding the CBI direction, the Court cited precedents that such directions require a FIR and substantive material, which were absent.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioners’ claims, and ordered the dismissal without any costs. No direction for a fresh selection or CBI investigation was granted.

Topics: Selection Process, Reservation Policy, CBI Investigation