Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Principle of Estoppel – When not applicable–National Food Security Act, 2013 – Cancellation of declaration of Fair Price Shop (FPS) vacancies in view of the implementation of 2013 Act– Correctness of – Held: Appellants were reposed with a responsibility of implementing the mandate of the 2013 Act and to bring about reforms in the existing Public Distribution System – In the present case, upon scrutiny, it was found that declaration of vacancies vide notification dtd. 30.01.14 was not in conformity with the 2013 Act and thus, cancellation of the said notification was necessary for the implementation of the said Act –Thus, the plea of legitimate expectation of the respondent does not have any basis – Respondent being a mere applicant in an un-finalised selection process has no vested right to seek continuation of the notified vacancies, when by recalling the vacancy notification, the appellants endeavored to enforce the statute –There can be no estoppel against a statute – No material irregularity in issuing the impugned notification dtd.
17.08.15 cancelling the declaration of vacancies –Respondent has not made out a case of arbitrariness or unreasonableness or mala fide – Judgment of Division Bench set aside and that of the Single Judge is restored.
Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of legitimate expectation visà-vis Principle of Estoppel – Discussed. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The doctrine of “legitimate expectation” has been developed in the context of principles of natural justice. ‘Legitimate expectation’ is a public law right whereas ‘promissory estoppel’ is a private law right. The doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is based on the principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness in governmental actions. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation ordinarily would not have any application when the legislature has enacted the statute. Further, the legitimate expectation cannot prevail over a policy introduced by the Government, which does not suffer from any perversity, unfairness or unreasonableness or which does not violate any fundamental or other enforceable rights vested in the respondent. When the decision of public body is in conformity with law or is in public interest, the plea of legitimate expectation cannot be sustained. [Paras 10 and 11][1067-B-E]
1.2 There is a necessary inter-play between the plea of legitimate expectation and Article 14. For a decision to be nonarbitrary, the reasonable/legitimate expectations of the claimant have to be considered. However, to decide whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context, is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. The 2013 Act was enacted to provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. [Paras 14 and 15][1069-A-C, G]
1.3 It is clear from the different provisions of the 2013 Act that there is a paradigm shift in addressing the problem of food security from the current welfare approach to a right based approach. The Act confers legal right on the eligible beneficiaries to get the essential commodities through fair price shops at a highly subsidized price. The Act also envisages reforms necessary for distribution of essential commodities to the ration card holders. In the present case, upon scrutiny, it was found that declaration of vacancies vide notification dated 30.01.2014 was not in conformity with the 2013 Act and thus, cancellation of the said notification was necessary for the implementation of the provisions of the said Act. In view of above, the plea of legitimate expectation of the respondent is without having any basis. In the instant case, no promise of any kind was made to continue the existing policy on the part of the State. Furthermore, Clause 4 of the Conditions of the Notification dated 30.01.2014, calling for vacancies, provided that the State could reject applications without ascertaining any reasons. The agency which initiated the selection process is entitled to recall it upon reasonable grounds. Participation in the selection process or being a selected candidate does not vest such candidate with the right to direct the Authorities to give him appointment. Having regard to the above, it cannot be said that the State has acted with material irregularity in issuing the impugned notification dated 17.08.2015. [Paras 19,
21 & 22][1071-D-E; 1072-A-D]
1.4 There can be no estoppel against a statute. In the instant case, the appellants were reposed with a responsibility of implementing the mandate of the 2013 Act, and more importantly, to bring about reforms in the existing Public Distribution System as stipulated under Section 12 of the said Act. The respondent herein being a mere applicant in an un-finalised selection process, has no vested right in his favour to seek continuation of the notified vacancies, when by recalling the vacancy notification, the appellants endeavored to enforce the statute. Moreover, there can be no estoppel against a statute. Even going by the observations of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, that the State was aware of the 2013 Act while issuing the 30.01.2014 vacancy notification, the said notification cannot be sustained, being contrary to the mandate of the National Food Security Act, 2013, more importantly of Section 12 thereof. [Paras 25 and 29][1073-A; 1074-B-E]
1.5 The 2013 Act came into effect on 10.09.2013. The vacancy notice is dated 30.01.2014. The vacancy notice does not refer to the provisions of 2013 Act. It would be improper to infer that the provisions of 2013 Act were kept in mind while issuing vacancy notice dated 30.01.2014. The respondent has not made out a case of arbitrariness or unreasonableness or mala fide. The judgment of the Division Bench impugned is set aside and the judgment of the Single Judge is restored. [Paras 30 and 31] [1074-F-G, H; 1075-A]
Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan (1955) 2 SCR 303; Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P. (1999) 4 SCC 458 : [1999]
2 SCR 1078 – followed.
Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 1999 (4) SCC 727 : [1999] 2 SCR 1033; Sethi Auto Service Station and Another v. Delhi Development Authority and Others (2009) 1 SCC 180 : [2008] 14 SCR 598; Union of India v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary 2016 (4) SCC 236 : [2016] 2 SCR 426; Food
Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 322; Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 12 SCC 170; Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of M.P. (1981) 4 SCC 471; A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. Federation v. B Narasimha Reddy (2011) 9 SCC 286 : [2011] 14 SCR 1; A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 62 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 249 – relied on.
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.