Read Judgment
The Supreme Court has held that the "principle of estoppel or acquiescence cannot overrride the law."
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath in this view allowed the appeal of an unsuccessful candidate observed procedure in the relevant service manual will prevail over the principle of estoppel or acquiescence.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The University issued a notification for promoting 14 Class-1V
employees to the post of Junior Clerk (Class-III), given they have
served 5 years in service, passed the matriculation exam or equivalent
and would be able to pass a typing test. Post the typing test, an
interview was held and respondents no. 3-16 were selected for promotion.
The appellants approached the court for nullification of the promotions
since neither the notification nor the manual mention of any
‘interview’ for the selection process. A single judge bench nullified
the promotions but a division bench was set up which set aside the order
of the single judge and promotions were given legal credibility.
Aggrieved by the order, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Question:
Whether principle of estoppel and acquiescence will prevail over statutory service rules prescribing the procedure for promotion of Class-IV employees to Class-III working in the Banaras Hindu University, a Central University?
Supreme Court’s Observation:
The Board of Examiners on their own changed the criteria and made it purely merit based by introducing an interview and also preparing the merit list on the basis of marks awarded in the typing test, written test and interview. As per the provisions of the manual, the typing test was not mandatory.
The Division Bench fell in error in applying the principle of estoppel that the appellants having appeared in the interview and being unsuccessful proceeded to challenge the same and on ground alone, allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the learned Single judge.
The Division Bench ought to have considered that the appellants were Class-IV employees working from 1977 onwards and expecting from them to have raised serious objection or protest at the stage of interview and understanding the principles of changing the Rules of the game, was too farfetched, unreasonable and unwarranted. It is settled principle that principle of estoppel cannot override the law.
The manual duly approved by the Executive Council will prevail over any such principle of estoppel or acquiescence. Reliance was places on the case of M/S. Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Jamnagar, 2015 Latest Caselaw 384 SC, where it has been laid down that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law required something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law.
The impugned judgment of the Division Bench was set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the promotions are invalid, was restored.
CASE TITLE: KRISHNA RAI THROUGH LRs & ORS. vs BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY THROUGH REGISTRAR & ORS.
CASE DETAILS: Civil Appeal Nos. 45784580 of 2022
CORAM: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments