![Challenge to UPPCL Technician Recruitment Dismissed, No CBI Probe: Supreme Court in Vinit Kumar v. State of U.P. [2026 INSC 997]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: The Supreme Court dismissed an Article 32 writ petition by unsuccessful candidates challenging the 2013 revised result of UPPCL's 2011 recruitment of 2974 Technician Grade-2 (Electrical) posts. The petitioners had not reached the General Category cut-off of 98.25 marks, some of them had suppressed an earlier identical writ petition, the selected candidates had worked for years and were not before the Court, and no basis was pleaded for a CBI investigation.
In Vinit Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. through Secretary & Ors. (2026 INSC 997), the Supreme Court held that the scope of the writ petition was confined by its order dated 30.01.2019 to the petitioners' claim of higher merit, and since they did not secure the General Category cut-off, no less meritorious candidate had been selected (paras 18–20). A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe also held that suppression of an earlier writ petition by petitioner nos. 8 to 18 disentitled them to relief, that long-serving appointees could not be disturbed in their absence, and that no case for a CBI investigation was made out (paras 21–23).
Status: Writ Petition (C) No. 123 of 2013 dismissed; no order as to costs (para 24).
Headnote: UPPCL Technician Recruitment Challenge Dismissed
Constitution of India – Article 32 – Service law – Public employment – UPPCL recruitment of Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical, 2011 – DOEACC Certificate – Revised select list dated 20.01.2013 – Cut-off marks – OBC candidates selected in open category – Interim order binding inter partes – Suppression of material facts – Non-joinder of selected candidates – Direction for CBI investigation.
Held: (i) The petitioners themselves confined their ground of relief before the Court to a claim of higher merit; the interim order dated 30.01.2019 binds them and confines the scope of scrutiny to that claim (paras 18–19).
(ii) The respondents' categorical stand that the petitioners did not secure the General Category cut-off was not controverted, so no candidate less meritorious than the petitioners was selected (para 20).
(iii) Non-disclosure that petitioner nos. 8 to 18 had filed an earlier writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking the same relief amounts to suppression of material facts and, without more, disentitles them to relief (para 21).
(iv) Selected candidates who have long been working cannot have their appointments disturbed, particularly in their absence (para 22).
(v) A direction to the CBI is not issued as a matter of routine; with no FIR, no allegation against the local police and no averments supporting it, the prayer was declined (para 23).
(paras 18–24)
Case Details: Vinit Kumar v. State of U.P. (2026 INSC 997)
Final Outcome: Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.
Case: Vinit Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. through Secretary & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 997
Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 123 of 2013
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Original Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 16 September 2026
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe (author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Constitution of India – Articles 32 and 226; reservation in public employment
Impugned Action: Revised result dated 20.01.2013 and appointment-cum-allotment list dated 30.01.2013 issued by Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) (paras 1, 6, 11)
Counsel: Mr. Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners; Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain for the respondents (paras 10, 12)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The order dated 30.01.2019 binds the petitioners, and the writ petition is confined to their claim of higher merit (paras 18–19).
- The petitioners did not secure the General Category cut-off; this was not controverted, so no less meritorious candidate was selected (paras 12, 20).
- Suppression of an earlier writ petition seeking identical relief disentitles petitioner nos. 8 to 18 to any relief (para 21).
- Appointments of selected candidates who have worked for a long time cannot be disturbed, particularly in their absence (para 22).
- No case for a CBI investigation was made out (para 23).
Brief Facts of the Case
UPPCL advertised 2974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical in 2011: 1778 General, 353 SC, 128 ST and 715 OBC. Eligibility included a trade certificate, High School with Science and Mathematics, and a DOEACC computer certificate to be produced at the interview (paras 1–2).
Of 13,576 candidates who took the written examination on 07.08.2011, 6288, including the petitioners, qualified for interview. The result was declared on 21.05.2012. Many candidates could not produce DOEACC certificates at the interview, and UPPCL extended the deadline up to 31.07.2012 (para 3).
Unsuccessful candidates, including the petitioners, challenged the selection in the High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the petitions on 30.08.2012, but on 26.09.2012 the Division Bench held relaxation impermissible and directed deletion of candidates who submitted DOEACC certificates after 31.03.2012, and a fresh result (paras 4–5).
The fresh result was issued on 20.01.2013 and an appointment-cum-allotment list on 30.01.2013. The present writ petition was filed on 19.02.2013 and tagged with SLPs challenging the Division Bench judgment (para 6).
On 14.08.2018 the Court called for a list of candidates and the dates of their DOEACC certificates, which UPPCL filed on 23.10.2018. On 30.01.2019 the Court recorded that the petitioners claimed higher merit than selected candidates and directed UPPCL to explain their marks and ranking. The connected SLPs were dismissed on 22.02.2019 in Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh (paras 7–9).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the petitioners, who claimed higher merit, were wrongly excluded from the revised select list dated 20.01.2013 (paras 18–20).
- Whether suppression of an earlier writ petition by some petitioners disentitled them to relief (para 21).
- Whether long-serving appointees could be disturbed, and whether a CBI investigation should be directed (paras 22–23).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Petitioners' case (paras 10–11): Counsel argued that only the first extension for DOEACC certificates was valid, that 1527 OBC candidates were selected against 715 reserved posts, that more candidates were selected than had submitted certificates in time, that the list filed in 2018 had mismatches, and that candidates below the cut-off were appointed. A fresh select list and a CBI investigation were sought.
Respondents' case (paras 12–13): UPPCL pointed to suppression of an earlier writ petition, non-joinder of selected candidates, and the General Category cut-off of 98.25, which the petitioners did not reach. Reserved category candidates scoring above the last General candidate are selected in the open category and are not counted against reservation.
Scope confined by the 30.01.2019 order (paras 16–19): Before the Court, the petitioners confined their ground of relief to a claim of higher merit, and raised no grievance about the list filed on 23.10.2018. An order binds the parties inter partes until set aside, so the scrutiny is confined to that claim.
No less meritorious candidate selected (para 20): UPPCL's counter affidavit dated 22.02.2019 stated that the petitioners did not secure the General Category cut-off. This was not controverted in written or oral submissions.
Suppression of material facts (para 21): Petitioner nos. 8 to 18 had filed an earlier writ petition before the Lucknow Bench seeking the same relief, disposed of on 09.11.2012 in terms of the Division Bench judgment. This was not disclosed, nor whether that order was challenged. Such non-disclosure disentitles them to relief.
Long-serving appointees and CBI (paras 22–23): The appointees have long been working and were not before the Court. Relying on Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, Himanshu Kumar and Legislative Council U.P. v. Sushil Kumar, the Court held that CBI directions are not routine and require sufficient pleadings and material, which were absent.
Final Outcome and Directions
- The writ petition is dismissed for want of merit (para 24).
- No order as to costs; pending applications disposed of (para 24).
Legal Principle Laid Down
When a court's order records and confines the ground on which relief is sought, that order binds the parties and limits later scrutiny. Unsuccessful candidates who did not secure the cut-off cannot unsettle a selection in which no less meritorious person was selected; suppression of an earlier identical petition disentitles a litigant to writ relief; long-serving appointees should not be disturbed in their absence; and a CBI investigation is directed only on sufficient pleadings and material.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Sanjay K. Dixit & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2019) 17 SCC 373 – Earlier round – Division Bench judgment upheld and connected SLPs dismissed. Discussed at para 9.
- State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (D) & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 435 – Relied upon – an order binds the parties until avoided or challenged. Discussed at para 19.
- State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571 (Constitution Bench) – Relied upon – CBI investigation not to be directed as a matter of routine. Discussed at para 23.
- Himanshu Kumar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2023) 12 SCC 592 – Relied upon – similar view on CBI directions. Discussed at para 23.
- Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar and Ors., 2025 INSC 1241 – Relied upon – pleadings and material sufficient for a CBI inquiry are required. Discussed at para 23.
- Decisions cited by the parties (Baisakhi Bhattacharyya, Manoj Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Kashyap, J.S. Yadav, Satya Prakash, Ritesh R. Sah, R.K. Sabharwal) are noted in the submissions. Discussed at paras 11, 13.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 18: "It is thus evident that, before a Bench of this Court, the petitioners themselves confined the ground of relief to their claim of higher merit vis-a vis the selected and appointed candidates ..."
Para 19: "It is trite law that an order is effective inter partes and shall bind them until it is successfully avoided or challenged in a higher forum ..."
Para 20: "It follows, axiomatically, that no candidate less meritorious than the petitioners has been selected."
Para 22: "At this point of time, particularly in their absence before us, their appointments cannot be disturbed."
Para 23: "In the instant case, the petitioners have neither lodged a first information report nor had made any allegations against the local police."
Para 24: "For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For job aspirants: A challenge to a selection needs a showing that a less meritorious candidate was preferred; failing the cut-off defeats such a claim (para 20).
- For litigants: Earlier proceedings seeking the same relief must be disclosed; suppression alone can defeat a writ petition (para 21).
- For recruiting bodies: Long-serving appointees are protected where they are not made parties, and reserved candidates selected on merit in the open category are not counted against reservation, as UPPCL argued (paras 13, 22).
- For practitioners seeking CBI probes: Specific pleadings and material are required; here no FIR was lodged and no allegation was made against the local police (para 23).
FAQs on the UPPCL Technician Recruitment Case
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Vinit Kumar v. State of U.P.?
It dismissed the writ petition challenging UPPCL's revised result of 20.01.2013 for Technician Grade-2 posts, finding no merit in it (para 24).
2. Why did the petitioners' claim of higher merit fail?
UPPCL stated that they did not secure the General Category cut-off of 98.25, and this was not controverted, so no less meritorious candidate was selected (paras 12, 20).
3. What was the suppression of facts?
Petitioner nos. 8 to 18 did not disclose that they had earlier filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking the same relief (para 21).
4. Why were the appointments not disturbed?
The selected candidates had long been working and were not before the Court (para 22).
5. Why was a CBI investigation refused?
No FIR was lodged, no allegation was made against the local police, and the petition contained no averments justifying a CBI enquiry (para 23).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 997, Vinit Kumar v. State of U.P., UPPCL recruitment 2011, Technician Grade-2 Electrical, DOEACC certificate, revised select list 2013, cut-off marks, OBC open category, suppression of material facts, CBI investigation, Article 32, Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment, service law
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Vinit Kumar v. State of U.P.
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).