Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1265 (ALL)

Deepak Sharma v. State of U. P.

2019-05-09

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, GOVIND MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Govind Mathur, C.J. 1. Special Appeal Nos. 387, 546, 671, 722, 762 and 763 of 2018 are barred by limitation from 289, 288, 315, 323, 333, 334 days, respectively. 2. Having considered the facts stated in the applications seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellants had justifiable reason to state that for a bona fide reason, they were prevented from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Order on Special Appeals 3. These appeals are before us to examine correctness of the judgment dated 07.10.2017 (Reported in 2018 (2) ADJ 633 passed by learned single Bench in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 41750 of 2015 (Prashant Kumar Jaiswal and others v. State of U.P. and others). Under the judgment impugned, learned single Bench directed the respondents to redraw the select list restricting it to candidates who hold a recognized "Course on Computer Concepts' certificate" (hereinafter referred to as "CCC") or a qualification recognized in law as being equivalent thereto. A direction is also given to Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") to reframe the merit list and publish the result thereof afresh. 4. The appellants are the persons who were employed by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited as "Technician Grade-II" by taking into consideration the computer qualification certificates represented by them as equivalent to "CCC" on basis of self-certification. 5. The appellant-petitioners as a consequence to the directions given by learned Single Bench have been terminated from service. Suffice to mention that in the petitions for writ, the appellants were not party to the writ proceedings and the judgment impugned was passed by learned single Bench in their absence. 6. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the Board of Management of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") under an office order dated 29.01.2011 prescribed that all incumbents seeking selection to the posts of Technician Grade-II are required to have "CCC certificate" issued by DOEACC Society. Under an office order dated 05.07.2013, the Managing Director of the Corporation provided that aspirants to be considered for appointment on the post referred above may hold either a "CCC certificate" or a Computer Eligibility Qualification equivalent thereto. 7. Under an office order dated 05.07.2013, the Managing Director of the Corporation provided that aspirants to be considered for appointment on the post referred above may hold either a "CCC certificate" or a Computer Eligibility Qualification equivalent thereto. 7. A process of selection then was initiated in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 06.09.2014 to satisfy 2211 posts of Technician Grade-II. A written examination was conducted on 08.11.2014 followed by interviews, which were conducted in the month of December, 2014. 8. The Commission under an Advertisement dated 24.04.2015 again initiated a process of selection against 884 posts of Technician Grade-II. However, prior to holding any written test in pursuance of this Advertisement, a select list as a consequence to earlier process of selection was notified on 14.07.2015. After declaration of select list, the selection process initiated in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 24.04.2015 also came to be completed and result thereof too was declared. The process of selection and the select list declared as a consequence thereto was challenged by way of filing a petition for writ on the count that the respondent-employer instead of assessing the computer qualification equivalent to "CCC certificates" issued by DOEACC permitted the aspirants to submit certificates even from private institutions with the self-certification about their equivalence to "CCC certificates" issued by DOEACC. Learned single Bench after considering the entire issue from different aspects concluded as under:- "1. A recognised qualification is an essential facet of Article 16 of the Constitution. 2. No rights can be recognised in a candidate aspiring to enter public service on the strength of an unrecognised qualification or one granted by an institution which is not conferred the authority to grant the same in accordance with law. 3. The qualification as prescribed by the respondents does not merit interference at the behest of the petitioners. 4. The decision of the Board of Directors of the Corporation dated 23 November, 2015 was an act of ratification and therefore does not merit interference. 5. The Commission failed to undertake any enquiry in respect of equivalence of qualifications. It undertook a wholly perfunctory exercise and that too prompted only by the interim directions of this Court. 6. Even in this exercise no accepted or legally sustainable norms were applied to adjudge the equivalence of certificates. 7. The equivalence of qualifications cannot be left to depend or rest upon a self certification of candidates. 8. It undertook a wholly perfunctory exercise and that too prompted only by the interim directions of this Court. 6. Even in this exercise no accepted or legally sustainable norms were applied to adjudge the equivalence of certificates. 7. The equivalence of qualifications cannot be left to depend or rest upon a self certification of candidates. 8. No certificate can possibly be accorded equivalence unless an enquiry is addressed towards its course content and syllabus. 9. None of the candidates holding other than CCC certificates were shown to hold qualifications recognisable in law. Their inclusion in the select list has clearly tainted the recruitment exercise. It has resulted in the induction of candidates who were riot entitled to be selected or offered appointment. 10. Since their inclusion in the select list is invalid and would consequently merit the select list being redrawn, the petitioners are not liable to be non-suited on the basis of the cut off marks prescribed by the Commission." 9. In light of the conclusions recorded above, learned single Bench declared that the select list prepared by the respondent-Commission is rendered unsustainable and, as such, deserves to be set aside. The writ petitions, thus, came to be disposed of with a direction asunder:- "The writ petitions preferred by the non-selected candidates are therefore allowed to the extent indicated below. The Court negatives the challenge to the decision of the Board of the Corporation dated 23 November, 2015 and the condition of eligibility contained in the two advertisements. All interim orders operating on the writ petitions shall stand discharged in order to enable the Commission to proceed in the matter in light of the directions being issued hereinafter. ... The select list drawn up pursuant to the advertisements in question insofar as it includes candidates who do not hold a CCC certificate conferred or recognised by NDELIT is quashed. The respondents shall in consequence redraw the select list restricting it to candidates who hold a recognised CCC certificate or a qualification recognised in law as being equivalent thereto. The Commission shall as a result of the above, reframe the merit list and publish the results thereof afresh, All consequences to follow." 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment referred above, these appeals have, been preferred by the persons who have already been employed as Technician Grade-II as a consequence to process of selection in question. The Commission shall as a result of the above, reframe the merit list and publish the results thereof afresh, All consequences to follow." 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment referred above, these appeals have, been preferred by the persons who have already been employed as Technician Grade-II as a consequence to process of selection in question. The appellants at the time of applying for recruitment as Technician Grade-II were not possessing "CCC certificates" issued by the DOEACC or a qualification equivalent thereto except the qualification self-certified about such equivalence. 11. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, are as follows:- 1. The process of selection for appointment as Technician Grade-II was initiated in pursuance of an Advertisement dated 06.09.2014 and during the process of selection, the appellants qualified the written test, interviews and were placed in the list of selected incumbents. The appellants joined service in the month of August, 2015 being offered by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board. The appointments given to the appellants have been set aside without providing any opportunity of hearing. A valuable civil right accrued to the appellants as a consequence to joining of service has been de-settled by the learned single Bench in their absence which is in flagrant viola non-joindertion of the principles of natural justice and also of fan-adjudication. 2. The petitions for writ accepted by learned single Bench under the judgment impugned were suffering with a serious lacuna of non-joinder of necessary parties, but learned single Bench without noticing that examined the merits of the case and set aside the select list as a consequence of which the appointments given to the appellants have been terminated. 3. The petitions for writ were filed by the persons who participated in process of selection knowing it well that the employer shall be accepting the certificates equivalent to "CCC certificate" on basis of self-certification. No challenge to the same was given before participation in process. It is only on being declared unsuccessful in the selection, the appellant-petitioners preferred the petitions for writ, as such, they should have been estopped from agitating the cause in question. 4. Learned single Bench failed to appreciate that the ingredients of qualification of "CCC" are only fundamental computer knowledge and every participant is aware of those being a person having ITI certificate wherein such computer knowledge is an integral part of curriculum. 5. 4. Learned single Bench failed to appreciate that the ingredients of qualification of "CCC" are only fundamental computer knowledge and every participant is aware of those being a person having ITI certificate wherein such computer knowledge is an integral part of curriculum. 5. The appellants submitted genuine certificates obtained from private institutions relating to the qualification either equivalent or higher to the qualification of "CCC". Learned single Bench would have ordered for verification of the qualificational certificates submitted by the petitioners instead of declaring such certificates admissible as equivalent to "CCC". 6. The process of recruitment and other service conditions relating to the post of Technician Grade-II are governed by "U.P. Electricity Board Operational Employees Category Service Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations; 1995")" and Regulation 9 provides for educational and technical qualification as given in Schedule I-A. As per the qualification prescribed, an incumbent to be considered for appointment as a Technician Grade-II is required to have High School examination certificate from the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination with Science and Mathematics with the qualification of All India Electrician Trade or State Vyavsayik Pramaripatra with experience of two years. The Regulations, 1995 nowhere prescribes the qualification of "CCC", as such, if a person is not having the certificate aforesaid that would not make him ineligible to be considered for appointment on the post in question. 7. The respondent-Corporation after initiating the process of selection considered all aspects of the matter objectively and arrived at a conclusion that a self-certification of the computer qualification shall be appropriate to satisfy the requirement of the computer knowledge. Such an administrative decision was not open to be interfered by the Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The matter was heard by the Court at length on 16.08.2018. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants explained their submissions in lucid. During the course of arguments, it was also brought to our notice that the judgment impugned has already been executed and a revised select list has already been notified. Consequential appointments too have been given and the appellants have also been discontinued from service. 13. The respondent Recruiting Agency, while preparing the revised select list, has taken into consideration the qualification of High School or Intermediate only to assess the computer knowledge and, on basis of that, appointments have been given. Consequential appointments too have been given and the appellants have also been discontinued from service. 13. The respondent Recruiting Agency, while preparing the revised select list, has taken into consideration the qualification of High School or Intermediate only to assess the computer knowledge and, on basis of that, appointments have been given. Meaning thereby, the certificate issued by DOEACC relating to "CCC" has not been taken into consideration. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Recruiting Agency stated that after examining all aspects of the process of selection in light of the judgment impugned, it was considered appropriate to have a select list afresh by taking into consideration the "CCC certificates" issued by the DOEACC or equivalent thereto. The equivalence to the certificate aforesaid was also examined by taking into consideration the curriculum of Computer subject in High School or Intermediate examination. According to learned counsel, the Commission adopted such mode in light of Government letter dated 03.05.2016. 14. Looking to the statement so given, a direction was given to the Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited to submit a statement of fact in the form of affidavit to explain as to whether the qualification of ITI/Vocational qualification possessed by the candidates or the persons similarly situated was taken into consideration while discontinuing them from service on the count that they are not possessing "CCC certificate" or a qualification equivalent thereto. 15. In pursuance of the directions aforesaid, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed with assertion that course of "CCC" is designed by National institution of Electronics and Information Technology (in short "NIELIT") which was earlier known as "DOEACC". The Commission, being an Agency for recruitment, conducted selection process to employ Technician Grade-II as per Regulations, 1995. In pursuance of the order dated 29.01.2018, the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited adhered the letter dated 03.05.2016 issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh addressed to all Principal Secretaries of various Departments in relation to determining equivalence of "CCC certificate" vis-a-vis other qualifications. The Commission while revising the list accepted the guidelines given under the order dated 03.05.2016 referred above. The guidelines prescribed under the letter dated 03.05.2016 are as follows :- "1. The Commission while revising the list accepted the guidelines given under the order dated 03.05.2016 referred above. The guidelines prescribed under the letter dated 03.05.2016 are as follows :- "1. The qualification of High School or Intermediate examination with the subject of Computer Science from Secondary Educational Council, Uttar Pradesh or from any Institution/Education Board/Council established by the Central or any State Government. 2. If any candidate has obtained Diploma or Degree in Computer Science then he shall also be eligible to be recruited as Junior Assistant/Stenographer." 16. The statement of fact given in the supplementary affidavit depicts that while considering candidature of all the candidates who participated in the process of selection, the Commission looked into the qualification and its ingredients as required under the letter dated 03.05.2016. The letter dated 03.05.2016, as a matter of fact, pertains to the mode to be adopted for equivalence of computer qualification while recruiting Junior Assistants and Stenographers. While making recruitment to the post of Junior Assistants and Stenographers, there was no need to have any certificate of ITI or of a qualification similar thereto. Under the letter dated 03.05.2016, no need was there to consider the curriculum of ITI while assessing equivalence as that is not an eligibility for making appointments on the post of Junior Assistants/Stenographers. 17. Looking to this factual background, this Court was of the view that no just reason was there for not taking into consideration the qualification of ITI/Vocational qualification possessed by the applicants or the persons similarly situated for making equivalence with the computer knowledge possessed by the persons having High School/Intermediate examination with Computer as a subject. On arriving at this conclusion vide order dated 24.08.2018, a direction was given to the parties concerned in following terms:- "In view of whatever stated above without examining other issues raised by learned counsel for the appellants, while keeping the instant appeal pending for further hearing, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent-Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow to make equivalence of the qualification of ITI/any Vocational qualification possessed by the appellants and the persons similarly situated to the appellants in the same terms that has been made for the qualification of High School/Intermediate as per the letter dated 03.05.2016 referred in preceding paragraphs. Such equivalence is required to be made by the Commission on or before 10.09.2018. Such equivalence is required to be made by the Commission on or before 10.09.2018. If the Commission arrives at the conclusion that Computer knowledge extended in the course of ITI/Vocational qualification as equivalent to "CCC certificate" or the qualification possessed by the persons who are having Computer as a subject in High School or Intermediate examination, a tentative revised select list shall also be prepared. A detailed report of the process of determination of equivalence alongwith revised select list, if prepared, shall be placed on record by the Corporation on next date of listing." 18. The order aforesaid was subject matter of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24585 of 2018 before the Supreme Court that came to be disposed of on 01.10.2018. The order passed in the Special Leave to Appeal aforesaid reads as follows :- "It is not in dispute that the Special Appeals referred to in the order dated 24.08.2018 are pending consideration before the High Court. Therefore, we request the High Court to dispose of the Special Appeals on merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations contained in the impugned interim order dated 24.08.2018. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. We make it clear that we have not otherwise considered the matter on merits and it is for the High Court to consider the merits of the matter in accordance with law. The directions issued to the Commission in the impugned order will not operate in the interregnum. In view of the above, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, is/are disposed of." 19. The appeals, as such, are: before us for final disposal. The first argument advanced on behalf of learned counsels for the appellants is that learned single Bench seriously erred while accepting the writ petitions in absence of the appellants, who faced the process of selection in pursuance of Advertisement dated 06.09.2014, on being selected, also joined the service in the month of August, 2015. A valuable civil right accrued in their favour could have not been dis-settled in their absence and, as such, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. True it is, as a consequence to appointment on the post of Technician Grade-II, a valuable civil right accrued in favour of the appellants and that could have not been adversely affected in their absence. True it is, as a consequence to appointment on the post of Technician Grade-II, a valuable civil right accrued in favour of the appellants and that could have not been adversely affected in their absence. The present appellants, as a matter of fact, were partly necessary to the writ proceedings but learned single Bench without examining this aspect of the matter cancelled their appointments. On this count alone, we would have accepted the appeals and remanded the matter to learned single Bench for read-judication of the writ petitions but, we are not inclined to do so on the count that all merits of the case have now been examined by us and we can treat the injury suffered by the appellants, if required. The remission of the matter to single Bench, as a matter of fact, would further prolong agony of the parties. 20. Before coming to other merits of the case, it would be appropriate to bring in box some of necessary facts in chronological order. 21. On 09.08.1995, the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board Operational Employees Category Service Regulations, 1995 were promulgated by then existing Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board by invoking powers under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The post of Technician Grade-II was prescribed under the Regulations, 1995 and that is to be filled in by way of direct recruitment. As per the Regulations, 1995 beside the educational qualification no mandate, was there to have any certificate in respect of computer literacy. 22. On 14.01.2000, as a consequence to the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission was established. The Commission, so established, acquired all the powers and authorities available to erstwhile Board for the purpose of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and 1948. On 14.01.2000 itself, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited too came into effect and on 30.02.2000, the Corporation adopted all existing Rules and Regulations governing the terms and conditions of the service of employees including the Regulations, 1995. 23. On 29.01.2011, the Corporation issued an office order to the effect that all incumbents seeking selection to the post of Technician Grade-II would be liable to hold "CCC certificate" issued by DOEACC Society. 24. On 25.11.2011, it was made clear that a qualification equivalent to "CCC" shall also be accepted as requisite eligibility to be considered for appointment on the post in question. 25. 24. On 25.11.2011, it was made clear that a qualification equivalent to "CCC" shall also be accepted as requisite eligibility to be considered for appointment on the post in question. 25. On 05.07.2013, an amendment was also introduced that the essential qualification in respect of knowledge in computer the aspirant may either have a "CCC certificate" or computer eligibility qualification equivalent thereto. This modification was made by the Managing Director of the Corporation in anticipation of formal approval being accorded to the decision of the Board. Under this order, the requirement to have "CCC" from DOEACC only was also deleted. 26. In the background as above, at the first instance, 2211 posts were advertised under a Notification dated 06.09.2014 and the process of selection so initiated came to be substantially concluded in the month of December, 2014. On 24.04.2015, another process of selection was initiated to fill up 884 posts of Technician Grade-II In the meanwhile, a final select list relating to the process of selection initiated on 06.09.2014 was declared on 14.07.2015. A challenge was given to the final select list by way of filing petition for writ, i.e., Writ-A No. 41750 of 2015 and that too came to be decided under the judgment impugned passed by learned single Bench. 27. During ongoing selection process, the Board of Directors of the Corporation met on 08.09.2015 and resolved that in respect of computer knowledge the eligibility qualification shall be "CCC certificate/O Level/A Level/B Level/C Level certificates" issued by the DOEACC/NIELIT. On 16.11.2015, result of the process of selection initiated under the Advertisement dated 24.04.2015 was also declared. After declaration of the results, the Board of the Corporation granted ex-post facto sanction to the office order dated 05.07.2013 whereby the requirement to have "CCC certificates" from DOEACC was deleted and the only requirement was to have "CCC certificate" or a qualification equivalent thereto. 28. As already stated, learned single Bench while accepting the petitions for writ mainly considered two issues vis. (a) whether certificates issued by private institutions/entities which were unrecognized could, in fact, have been treated to be equivalent to CCC certificate? and; (b) whether the Commission undertook any exercise to determine equivalence of such certificates? 29. 28. As already stated, learned single Bench while accepting the petitions for writ mainly considered two issues vis. (a) whether certificates issued by private institutions/entities which were unrecognized could, in fact, have been treated to be equivalent to CCC certificate? and; (b) whether the Commission undertook any exercise to determine equivalence of such certificates? 29. While dealing with the first issue, learned single Bench arrived at a conclusion that acceptance of the certificates of doubtful validity of dubious credibility violates the concept of equability enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The selections to a public service must be fair and the eligibility qualification which is said to be equivalent must be a recognized one with a substantive equality with the original eligibility qualification. The writ Court held that the self-recognition of the qualification equivalent to "CCC certificate" is not at all legally sustainable and, as such, the persons not possessing "CCC certificates" or a recognized qualification equivalent thereto by a valid mode of recognition are not entitled to hold the post of Technician Grade-II. It was also held that no adequate exercise was undertaken by the Commission to determine equivalence of the certificates submitted by the several selected incumbents claiming that they possess a qualification equivalent to CCC. The writ Court, however, did not find any illegality in decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation dated 23.11.2015 ratifying the decision taken by the Managing Director of the Corporation in the year 2013. 30. In appeal, the argument advanced is that learned single Bench erred while not appreciating the fact that CCC is nothing but a preliminary knowledge of computer and the appellants who are otherwise having the qualification of ITI with High School examination are computer literate. The certificates submitted by them also pertain to this effect only. It is emphasized that learned Single Bench did not find any illegality in a ratification of the decision taken by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 05.07.2013 by the Board of Directors on 23.11.2015 and, as such, the appellants are having requisite knowledge of computer operation. As such, they were rightly selected to the post concerned. It is emphasized that learned Single Bench did not find any illegality in a ratification of the decision taken by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 05.07.2013 by the Board of Directors on 23.11.2015 and, as such, the appellants are having requisite knowledge of computer operation. As such, they were rightly selected to the post concerned. According to learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned Single Bench, if had any doubt about equivalence of the qualification possessed by the appellants on basis of self-certification, then the appropriate course was to direct the employer to verify such certification and not to set aside their selection by directing to prepare a fresh select list. 31. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-respondents submits that the concept of self-certification is absolutely alien to educational as well as service jurisprudence in view of the fact that equivalence of two different qualifications is always required to be made by an expert body and, in the case in hand, admittedly, no such equivalence was ever made. While supporting the views taken by learned Single Bench, it is asserted that CCC certificate is given by an expert body and only after taking into consideration the ingredients of the course concerned equivalence could have been made by an expert body only. The selection of the appellants and the persons alike as per learned counsel is nothing but a fraud in public employment. 32. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of rival parties. At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that the employer after accepting the judgment given by learned Single Bench has prepared a fresh select list and, while doing so, the certificate issued by DOEACC relating to "CCC" has not been taken into consideration. The only aspect that has been taken into consideration by the employer is knowledge of the aspirant to access computer and this assessment is made on basis of the qualification possessed by them in High School or Intermediate. The appellants are also persons who possessed ITI qualification wherein too a basic knowledge of computer operation is warranted, but that has not been taken into consideration. 33. While keeping in mind the fact stated above, we deem it appropriate to understand nature of "CCC" conducted by DOEACC. The appellants are also persons who possessed ITI qualification wherein too a basic knowledge of computer operation is warranted, but that has not been taken into consideration. 33. While keeping in mind the fact stated above, we deem it appropriate to understand nature of "CCC" conducted by DOEACC. As per the details available on the official website of the NIELIT, the details of the Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) is as follows:- "Introduction: This course is designed to aim at imparting a basic level IT Literacy programme for the common man. This programme has essentially been conceived with an idea of giving an opportunity to the common man to attain computer literacy thereby contributing to increased and speedy PC penetration in different walks of life. After completing the course the incumbent should be able to the use the computer for basic purposes of preparing his personnel/business letters, viewing information on internet (the web), receiving and sending mails, preparing his business presentations, preparing small databases etc. This helps the small business communities, housewives, etc. to maintain their small accounts using the computers and enjoy in the world of Information Technology. This course is, therefore, designed to be more practical oriented. Eligibility: The candidates can appear in the NIELIT CCC Examination through following three modes and the eligibility criteria for each mode are indicated against each: 2.1 Candidates sponsored by NIELIT approved Institutes permitted to conduct CCC Course - irrespective of any educational qualifications; 2.2 Candidates sponsored by Government recognized Schools/Colleges having obtained an Unique Identity number from NIELIT for conducting CCC - irrespective of any educational qualifications; and 2.3 Direct Applicants (without essentially undergoing the Accredited Course or without being sponsored by a Govt. recognised School/College) - irrespective of any educational qualification; Duration: The total duration of the course is 80 hours, consisting of (i) Theory: 25 hours (ii) Tutorials : 5 hours (iii) Practical : 50 hours The course could ideally be a two weeks intensive course." 34. The introduction quoted above indicates that the Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) is designed to fulfil the beginner level computer literacy and that can be undertaken by a person at his own also. The only requirement is that he must get the same verified by NDELIT (formerly known as "DOEACC Society"). The introduction quoted above indicates that the Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) is designed to fulfil the beginner level computer literacy and that can be undertaken by a person at his own also. The only requirement is that he must get the same verified by NDELIT (formerly known as "DOEACC Society"). In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the eligibility as per the applicable rules was that the incumbent must have CCC certificate or equivalent thereto. There was no need to have CCC certificate from DOEACC or its successor body NIELIT. True it is, the employer adopted the concept regarding computer literacy from DOEACC/NIELXET, but there was no need to have such qualification from DOEACC or its successor body. The only issue was to assess equivalence with the required basic knowledge of computer operations. The appellants by their self-certification declared and certified about basic knowledge of computer operations. Such certification may be alien for the advance knowledge of computer applications and operations but for preliminary knowledge of computer literacy such certification can very well be made by a person who is otherwise having a qualification of ITI in addition to their other eligibility qualification. Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) as per the introduction given by NIELIT is nothing but an effort made to make the Indian people even illiterate aware with computer literacy. In current days, such basic literacy is available with most of the people in every region of the country including the rural areas. It would also be appropriate to state that to have such basic computer literacy there is no need to have even minimum formal education and even an illiterate person can satisfy the requirement of CCC. 35. Learned Single Bench considered the qualification of CCC as an expertise in the computer application which, as matter of fact, is nothing but a most preliminary knowledge in the field concerned. In other words, it can be said that requirement of the employer was to have the persons at least with minimum knowledge of computer concepts and the person applying must be computer literate. In present days, computer literacy is just equivalent to letter literacy in earlier days. For letter literacy, self-certification was always acceptable and in line of the same, the computer literacy on self-certification can very well be accepted. In present days, computer literacy is just equivalent to letter literacy in earlier days. For letter literacy, self-certification was always acceptable and in line of the same, the computer literacy on self-certification can very well be accepted. In this factual background, we are of considered opinion that the employer did not commit any wrong while having a declaration on basis of self-certification for computer literacy equivalent to CCC. In entirety, we are of considered opinion that learned Single Bench utterly failed to understand the nature of Course on Computer Concepts (CCC). 36. In result, learned Single Bench also erred in concluding that no reasonable and fair exercise was done to determine equivalence of the computer knowledge possessed by the appellants which was claimed as equivalent to CCC certificate. 37. It would also be appropriate to state that mode of self-certification was declared by the Recruiting Agency before initiating process of selection but that was not at all questioned by any of the petitioner-respondents prior to declaration of the list of selected incumbents. It is only on being failed to have a place in the select list, challenge to the aforesaid mode is given. The petitioner-respondents if had any bona fide grievance with such mode, then challenge could have been given at the time of notification of such mode. 38. In view of the discussion made above, this batch of appeals is allowed. Judgment impugned dated 07.10.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 41750 of 201.5 (Prashant Kumar Jaiswal and others v. State of U.P. and 10 others) is set aside. The writ petitions are also dismissed. Respondents are directed to restore the position relating to entire process of selection including the appointments of selected incumbents as that was prior to acceptance of the writ petitions under the judgment impugned.