The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection and appointments made by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) for 2,974 Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical posts, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to relief on the grounds raised before the Court.
A Bench of Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment on September 16, 2026, in a long-running dispute arising from the 2011 recruitment process. The petitioners had also sought a fresh revision of the select list and a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into alleged irregularities.
The judgment records that the recruitment process began with a UPPCL advertisement issued on March 4, 2011, for 2,974 posts. The prescribed qualifications included a two-year Electrician Trade certificate, High School qualification with Science and Mathematics, and a DOEACC computer certificate to be produced at the interview stage.
Background
The written examination was conducted on August 7, 2011, with 13,576 candidates appearing. As many as 6,288 candidates qualified for interviews, which were conducted between November 28 and December 28, 2011.
The initial result was declared on May 21, 2012. Several candidates had not produced their DOEACC certificates at the interview stage. UPPCL subsequently extended the deadline for submitting the certificates, eventually allowing submission up to July 31, 2012.
This led to litigation before the Allahabad High Court. On September 26, 2012, its Division Bench held that the prescribed requirement could not be relaxed where the advertisement itself did not permit such relaxation. It directed UPPCL to remove candidates who submitted their certificates after March 31, 2012, and prepare a fresh result.
UPPCL thereafter issued a revised select list on January 20, 2013, followed by an appointment-cum-allotment list on January 30, 2013.
The petitioners argued that the revised selection still contained irregularities. They claimed, among other things, that candidates with lower marks had been appointed and that there were discrepancies in the lists submitted by UPPCL.
They also alleged that the number of candidates selected from the OBC category exceeded the number of posts reserved for that category. A CBI investigation into alleged manipulation of records and appointments was also sought.
UPPCL, however, maintained that the petitioners themselves had not secured the prescribed General Category cut-off of 98.25 marks. It also argued that candidates selected against horizontal categories could not be directly compared with General Category candidates.
The Supreme Court noted that when the matter was heard earlier on January 30, 2019, the petitioners' principal claim before the Court was that they were higher in merit than candidates who had been selected and appointed.
The Court held that this earlier order confined the scope of the present proceedings to that particular contention.
The respondents subsequently stated that the petitioners had not obtained the General Category cut-off marks. The Court noted that this position was not controverted by the petitioners in their written or oral submissions.
The Court observed,
"It follows, axiomatically, that no candidate less meritorious than the petitioners has been selected."
The Bench also took note of the respondents' contention that petitioner nos. 8 to 18 had earlier approached the Allahabad High Court seeking the same relief. The Supreme Court found that this earlier litigation and its disposal had not been disclosed in the present proceedings.
The Court held that the non-disclosure amounted to suppression of material facts and that this itself disentitled those petitioners from relief.
On the request for a CBI inquiry, the Supreme Court reiterated that such directions are not issued routinely merely because allegations have been made.
The Bench noted that the petitioners had neither lodged an FIR nor made allegations against the local police. It further observed that the writ petition did not set out material explaining the basis for directing a CBI investigation.
Accordingly, the Court declined to grant the requested inquiry.
The Supreme Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit. It dismissed the petition and declined to interfere with the selection and appointments in question.
The Court also ordered that there would be no order as to costs and disposed of any pending applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vinit Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. Through Secretary & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 123 of 2013
Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Decision Date: September 16, 2026
