Suppression of prior identical litigation disentitles petitioners to constitutional relief.

UPPCL issued an advertisement dated 04.03.2011 for 2,974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical, prescribing, inter alia, a two-year electrician trade certificate, High School qualification with Science and Mathematics, and a DOEACC computer certificate to be produced at the interview.

After the written examination and interviews, the initial result was declared on 21.05.2012. Since several candidates could not produce the DOEACC certificate at the interview, UPPCL extended the deadline for its submission, ultimately until 31.07.2012.

Unsuccessful candidates, including the petitioners, challenged the selection. The Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench held that candidates who had submitted their DOEACC certificates after 31.03.2012 could not be included in the select list and directed preparation of a fresh result.

UPPCL thereafter issued a revised result on 20.01.2013 and an appointment-cum-allotment list on 30.01.2013.

In an order dated 30.01.2019, the Court recorded that the petitioners’ principal claim was that they were higher in merit than the selected candidates and directed UPPCL to disclose their marks, ranking, and reasons for non-selection.

It was also found that petitioners nos. 8 to 18 had previously filed substantially identical proceedings before the High Court without disclosing that fact in the present writ petition.

Meanwhile, the appointments had been made and the selected candidates had served for a considerable period.

Whether the petitioners were higher in merit than the selected candidates and were consequently entitled to cancellation of the revised result and appointment-cum-allotment list?

Whether the alleged irregularities concerning submission of DOEACC certificates, reservation, mismatches in the select list, and appointment of candidates below the cut-off warranted quashing of the selection and a fresh selection exercise?

Whether the Supreme Court should direct a CBI investigation into the alleged manipulation of selection records and appointments?

Article 32 jurisdiction, though wide, is subject to judicially recognised self-imposed limitations; a direction for a CBI investigation is not issued routinely or merely on the basis of allegations, and requires sufficient pleadings and supporting material, as held in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Legislative Council, U.P. v. Sushil Kumar.

An order passed between parties binds them unless set aside or successfully challenged, as recognised in State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar; accordingly, the scope of adjudication may be confined by an earlier order recording the grounds urged by the parties.

In reservation matters, candidates belonging to reserved categories who secure marks above the last selected General Category candidate may be adjusted against open-category seats and are not counted against the reserved quota, under J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Union of India v. Satya Prakash, Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul, and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab.

The validity of the DOEACC-certification cut-off and exclusion of candidates submitting certificates after 31.03.2012 had already been upheld by this Court in Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court held that, pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2019, the petitioners’ case was confined to their assertion of superior merit vis-à-vis the selected candidates.

UPPCL specifically stated that the petitioners had failed to obtain the General Category cut-off of 98.25 marks, and the petitioners neither controverted that assertion in their written submissions nor in oral arguments.

Therefore, the Court concluded that no candidate less meritorious than the petitioners had been selected.

The other allegations concerning certificate submission, reservation, discrepancies, and alleged manipulation could not be expanded into the present proceedings after the petitioners had confined their case to comparative merit.

Further, petitioners nos. 8 to 18 had suppressed their earlier substantially identical writ petition, which independently disentitled them to relief.

The Court also declined to disturb appointments after the selected candidates had served for a considerable period, particularly because they were not parties to the proceedings.

Finally, the request for a CBI investigation failed because the petitioners had not lodged an FIR, made specific allegations against the local police, or placed sufficient material establishing a basis for such an investigation.

It held that the petitioners had not established that they were more meritorious than the selected candidates, that material facts had been suppressed by some petitioners, and that the long-standing appointments could not be disturbed in the circumstances.

The prayer for a CBI investigation was also rejected for want of adequate pleadings and supporting material.

There was no order as to costs, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.