VIKAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal, and Prashant Mishra, learned counsels in Writ -A No. - 656 of 2020 [Vikas And 80 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others], Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel in Writ - A No. -945 of 2020 [Jai Shankar Chaubey And 60 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others], Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel who appears in Writ - A No. - 693 of 2020 [Kavita Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others]. All other learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have adopted the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsels noticed above. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has addressed submissions for the State-respondents, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Avneesh Tripathi has been heard on behalf of the Commission while Sri M.D. Singh, 'Shekhar' and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsels assisted by Sri G.K. Malviya, have appeared for the impleaded parties. A. INTRODUCTION

(2.) This batch of writ petitions challenge a selection process undertaken by the U.P. Public Service Commission1 for appointment of Assistant Review Officers and Review Officers in different departments of the State Government. Admittedly, all the writ petitioners had successfully cleared the written examination. They were, however, not permitted to participate in the typing test leading to the filing of the present writ petitions. The writ petitioners approached this Court stating that the respondents had not permitted them to participate further in the selection process on the ground that they did not possess the ''O' Level certificate as prescribed by NIELIT. The writ petitioners appearing in the lead matter being Writ A No. 656 of 2020 have classified the various petitioners as falling in the following groups: --

(3.) All the writ petitioners contend that they hold degrees and diplomas which are either equivalent to an ''O' Level certificate or are liable to be viewed as a higher or superior qualification to that of an ''O' Level certificate. It was also their contention that in the previous recruitment exercises which had been undertaken, candidates holding qualifications identical to that of the petitioners, had been permitted to participate in the selection process and had also been appointed subsequently. In view of the aforesaid, it was contended that the exclusion of the petitioners was clearly arbitrary and illegal. When the leading writ petition came up for consideration before a learned Judge on 17 January 2020, rival submissions were noted and upon consideration thereof and as an interim measure it was provided that in case the petitioners here ultimately succeed, the Commission would hold a special typing rest for them and appointments if any made would be subject to the result of the writ petition. On 29 July 2020, the Court took note of a supplementary affidavit filed in connected petition being Writ-A No.945 of 2020 and the reliance placed on behalf of the petitioners on a Government Order of 09 June 2020. The State respondents as well as the Commission were directed to file their counter affidavits. Pursuant to those directions, affidavits have since been exchanged between parties. The Commission along with its counter affidavit of 17 February 2020 placed on the record a decision taken by a 3 member Expert Committee dealing with the question of equivalence of degrees and diplomas submitted by candidates to the ''O' Level certificate as issued by NIELIT. Taking note of the course content of the ''O' Level certificate, the Committee held that certificates of higher levels would not be considered. It further decided that certificates issued by Institutes, Centers and Schools accredited by NIELIT for running courses other than the ''O' Level would also not be considered. The Committee further resolved that higher degrees/diplomas certificates in IT/Computer Science submitted in lieu of the ''O' Level Certificate would also not be considered. It also excluded from consideration any certificate issued by a private school, training center, institution or a body. It lastly decided that a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) as well as a Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) awarded by universities or other organizations would also not be considered as equivalent to the ''O' Level certificate.