UPPCL Technician Recruitment: Supreme Court Dismisses 2013 Writ, Cites Suppression and Refuses CBI Probe

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has dismissed a 2013 writ petition challenging the revised selection list for 2,974 Technician Grade-2 posts in the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. It held that its scrutiny was confined to the petitioners’ recorded claim of higher merit, which failed because they were below the general category cut-off; that some petitioners had suppressed an earlier writ petition; and that no case for a CBI investigation was made out.

UPPCL advertised 2,974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical in 2011, requiring among other things a DOEACC computer certificate at interview. Candidates were repeatedly given time to produce the certificate, finally up to 31 July 2012. The Allahabad High Court Division Bench held in September 2012 that relaxation was impermissible and that only candidates who submitted the certificate by 31 March 2012 could be included, leading to a fresh result in January 2013.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court in February 2013, alleging irregularities including excess OBC selections, mismatches in lists and appointment of candidates below the cut-off, and sought a CBI probe. In 2019 the Court upheld the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of U.P., (2019) 02 SC CK 0099; by an earlier order of 30 January 2019, it had recorded the petitioners’ ground that they were higher in merit than selected candidates.

The Key Question Before the Court

Could the petitioners re-open the selection on new grounds, and were they entitled to any relief or to a CBI investigation?

Scope, Merit, Suppression and Settled Appointments

Relying on State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar, (1995) 12 SC CK 0029, the Court held that the order of 30 January 2019 bound the parties, since “an order is effective inter partes and shall bind them until it is successfully avoided or challenged in a higher forum”. Its scrutiny was therefore limited to the higher-merit claim. UPPCL’s unrebutted stand was that the petitioners scored below the general category cut-off of 98.25 marks, so “no candidate less meritorious than the petitioners has been selected”.

It further held that several petitioners had been parties to an earlier writ petition before the Lucknow Bench that was not disclosed, which “amounts to suppression of material facts” and by itself disentitled them to relief. Appointees who had served for years, and were not before the Court, could not be disturbed. On the CBI prayer, citing Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 02 SC CK 0028, Himanshu Kumar, (2022) 07 SC CK 0077 and Legislative Council U.P. v. Sushil Kumar, (2025) 10 SC CK 1116, it held no case was made out, as no FIR had been lodged and no allegation was made against the local police.

What the Court Actually Held

• Scrutiny was confined to the ground recorded in the order of 30 January 2019.
• No candidate less meritorious than the petitioners was selected.
• Non-disclosure of the earlier writ petition amounted to suppression of material facts.
• Long-standing appointments were not disturbed, no CBI probe was ordered, and the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It shows how a recorded ground in an interim order can define the scope of a long-pending case.
• It reaffirms that suppressing earlier litigation can sink a petition on its own.
• It applies the restraint the Court exercises before ordering CBI investigations.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Petitioners in Recruitment Cases

• Disclose every earlier petition filed by any petitioner.
• Rebut the employer’s cut-off figures specifically, in writing.

For Employers

• Place category-wise cut-offs and merit data on record early.
• Point out that open-merit reserved candidates do not count against the quota.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Because its scrutiny was confined to the higher-merit ground recorded in the 30 January 2019 order.

No. Selected candidates had served for a long time and were not parties, so their appointments were not disturbed.

No FIR had been lodged and no allegation was made against the local police; the Court applied its settled restraint on such directions.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →