'CBI Probe Cannot Be Ordered Routinely': Supreme Court Dismisses 2013 UPPCL Selection Challenge

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that the power of a court to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe is extraordinary and must be exercised with restraint. It said such directions cannot be issued as a matter of routine merely on the basis of allegations and require sufficient material in the pleadings to justify such intervention.

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging the appointment to 2,974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) in 2013.

Court also held that candidates who failed to secure the prescribed cut-off marks for their category cannot claim a right to selection, and such claims cannot be used as a basis to challenge the entire selection process.

Why did the Supreme Court reject the challenge to the UPPCL selection?

Court rejected a plea filed by Vinit Kumar and others seeking a fresh selection exercise and a CBI investigation into the revision of the selected list of 2012.

The unsuccessful candidates, including the petitioners, had earlier filed a batch of writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court. They principally contended that candidates who had furnished DOEACC Certificates between December 28, 2011 and March 31, 2012, as well as candidates whose results had been withheld for not furnishing DOEACC Certificates, had been wrongly included in the select list.

The single judge and division bench of the high court, as well as the Supreme Court, had dismissed their pleas.

"The suppression of material facts, such as the filing of previous litigation seeking identical relief, disentitles a petitioner from seeking discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction," the Bench said.

What did the petitioners allege about the selection process?

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that only the first extension of time for submitting the DOEACC Certificates was valid and that the subsequent extensions were unauthorised.

He further submitted that although only 715 of the 2,974 advertised posts were earmarked for the OBC category, as many as 1,527 candidates were selected in that category, which, according to the petitioners, was in violation of the reservation policy.

It was also contended that 2,293 candidates had submitted their certificates within the prescribed time, while 2,836 candidates were ultimately selected.

The petitioners further pointed to several mismatches in names and roll numbers in comparison with the list published by UPPCL on its website on January 30, 2013.

They also alleged that certain candidates who had scored less than the prescribed cut-off had nevertheless been appointed and sought an independent CBI investigation into the alleged manipulation of records and appointments.

Why did the respondents say the petition was not maintainable?

Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the respondents, submitted that pleas seeking identical relief had already been dealt with in earlier proceedings and that the present writ petition was therefore not maintainable on that ground alone.

It was also submitted that the petitioners could not be permitted to raise new issues in the present writ petition.

The respondents pointed out that the petitioners belonged to the general category, for which the cut-off was 98.25 marks. They could not compare their claims with candidates selected under horizontal sub-categories such as dependants of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen, for whom lower cut-offs of 65.75 and 80.25 marks respectively had been prescribed.

The petitioners had secured less than 98.25 marks, which was the prescribed cut-off for the general category, and therefore their names did not appear in the select list.

The respondents also pointed out that a candidate who applies in a reserved category but scores higher than the last selected general category candidate is entitled to be selected in the open category. Such selection is not to be counted while calculating the percentage of reservation.

Candidates below cut-off cannot claim a right to selection

Having heard the parties, Court noted that it is settled law that an order is effective between the parties and remains binding on them until it is successfully avoided or challenged before a higher forum.

The Bench also noted that the categorical stand of the respondents was that the petitioners had not secured the cut-off marks prescribed for the general category and were therefore not selected.

This position was not controverted either in the written submissions filed by the petitioners or during oral arguments, Court said.

"It follows, axiomatically, that no candidate less meritorious than the petitioners has been selected," the Bench said.

Court also held that the petitioners' failure to disclose that they had been parties to previous proceedings before the high court and the Supreme Court amounted to suppression of material facts.

Such conduct, the Court said, by itself disentitled them from seeking relief.

Why did the Supreme Court refuse to disturb the appointments?

Court also took note of the fact that the selected candidates had long since been issued appointment letters and had been working on the posts for a considerable period.

"At this point of time, particularly in their absence before us, their appointments cannot be disturbed," the Bench said.

CBI probe cannot be ordered routinely

On the plea for a CBI investigation, the Supreme Court referred to the 2010 Constitution Bench judgment in State of West Bengal & Ors Vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors.

Court noted that although Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution confer wide powers on constitutional courts, they must be exercised subject to self-imposed limitations.

The Constitution Bench had held that a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation should not be issued as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled allegations against the local police.

The Supreme Court also referred to its 2025 judgment in Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow and Ors Vs Sushil Kumar and Ors, in which it held that while issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation, the court must examine the pleadings and material to determine whether there is sufficient basis for such an inquiry.

"In the instant case, the petitioners have neither lodged a first information report nor had made any allegations against the local police. No averments have been made in the writ petition disclosing the basis for direction for an enquiry by CBI. Therefore, we are not inclined to accede to the said prayer made by the petitioners," the Bench said.

Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed it.

Case Title: Vinit Kumar & Ors Vs State of UP Through Secretary & Ors

Bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe 

Date of Judgment: September 16, 2026