Service law: Principle of estoppel and acquiescence whether would prevail over statutory service rules prescribing procedure for promotion of Class-IV employees to Class-II working in the Central University – Single Judge held that the statutory rules would prevail and must be strictly adhered to – However, Division Bench set aside the judgment of single judge and held that the appellants having appeared in the examination process as also the interview without any protest upon being unsuccessful could not have challenged the selection process – On appeal, held: As per the Manual, all Class-IV employees, who have put in five years’ service and who have passed matriculation examination or equivalent, would be eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk Grade – Such eligible candidates would be tested in a typing test in English/Hindi for a minimum speed of 30 words per minute – This type test was not mandatorily required to be qualified and even those eligible candidates, who could not qualify the type test, but were otherwise eligible having passed in the departmental test, would be allowed two years’ time after joining to qualify the typing test – The only test required for eligible candidates was to pass in the departmental test i.e. the test of simple English, Hindi and Arithmetic – However, Board of Examiners on their own changed the criteria and made it purely merit based by introducing an interview – There is neither any provision nor any other indication in the manual duly approved by the Executive Council for such merit list – Hence, 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 – Appellants were class-IV employees working from 1977 onwards and expecting from them to have raised the objection at the stage of interview was too far-fetched and unreasonable – It is settled principle that principle of estoppel cannot override the law – Therefore, the manual duly approved by the Executive Council will prevail over any such principle of estoppel or acquiescence.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. As per para 6.4 of the Manual duly approved by the Executive Council’s Resolution No.223 dated 2/3rd of November, 1980, all Class-IV employees, who have put in five years’ service and who have passed matriculation examination or equivalent, would be eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk Grade. Such eligible candidates would be tested in a typing test in English/Hindi for a minimum speed of 30 words per minute. The note appended to such Clause of typing test mentions that if an employee does not pass the typing test and is otherwise eligible for promotion, he be promoted subject to the condition that he passes the typing test within two years from the date of his promotion failing which, he would be reverted. The note further provided that for such employees the typing test would be held twice a year. Para 6.4(ii)(b) provided that two papers of simple English, Hindi and Arithmetic of one hour duration would be held. [Para 14][1112-B-D]
2. The net effect of the above eligibility and procedure prescribed for promotion of Group D Class IV employees to the cadre of Junior Clerk would be that (1) a type test would be held with a minimum speed of 30 words per minute in Hindi/English. This type test was not mandatorily required to be qualified and even those eligible candidates, who could not qualify the type test, but were otherwise eligible having passed in the departmental test, would be allowed two years’ time after joining to qualify the typing test and for such candidates, typing test would be held twice a year. The only test required for eligible candidates was to pass in the departmental test i.e. the test of simple English, Hindi and Arithmetic. [Paras 16 and 17][1112-F-G]
3. In the present case, the Board of Examiners comprising of large number of Members changed the entire procedure and they established a completely new procedure. They awarded 20 marks for the type test treating it to be compulsory, 60 marks for the written departmental test of simple English, Hindi and Arithmetic with 20 marks for each subject and further introduced an interview of 20 marks. Thus, the merit list was to be prepared on the total 100 marks as distributed above. There is neither any provision nor any other indication in the Manual duly approved by the Executive Council for preparing such a merit list based upon the marks awarded under different heads. [Paras 18 and 19][1113-C-D]
4. 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. [Paras 22 and 23][1114-C-E]
Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others v. State of Orissa and others (1995) 6 SCC 1: [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 419; Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (preventive), Jamnagar (2015) 11 SCC 628 : [2015] 7 SCR 132 – relied on.
Union of India and another v. N. Chandrashekharan and others JT 1998(1) SC 295 : [1998] 1 SCR
419; Utkal University and others v. Dr. N.C. Sarangi and others JT 1999 (1) SC 101 : [ 1999] 1 SCR 19; Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala (2002) 6 SCC
127 : [2002] 3 SCR 948; K.A. Nagmani v. Indian Airlines 2009 (5) SCC 515 : [2009] 5 SCR 89; Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others 1995(3) SCC 486 : [1995] 1 SCR 908 – held
inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.