Debangana Ray
Published on June 21, 2022 at 20:05 IST
The Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel will not apply in a selection process when it is held contrary to the relevant rules.
The bench comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath stated that “principle of estoppel cannot override the law”and that the procedure mentioned in the relevant service manual will prevail over the principle of estoppel or acquiescence.
The bench was discussing an appeal relating to the filing up of 14 posts in Class III (Junior Clerk) in the Banaras Hindu University by way of promotion.
The notification inviting applications from Class IV employees for promotion to Class III had prescribed that interview will be conducted in addition to the typing test. However, the service rules did not mention interview from promotion to class III.
Still, the board of examiners conducted an interview and finalised 14 candidates. The selection process was challenged by some candidates, before the Allahabad HC.
A single bench in High Court set aside the selection process as there was a grave error committed by preparing the merit list, even on the basis of interview as well.
However, a division bench of the High Court set aside the judgement of the single bench, on appeal of the BHU. The candidates then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the division bench was erroneous in its judgement by applying the principle of estoppel.
The court observed that “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 type test, written test and interview.”
“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”, the apex Court said.
Referring to precedents, the Court said that “there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires 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 case laws relied upon by the Division Bench had no application in the facts of the present case as none of those judgments laid down that principle of estoppel would be above law, the Court added.
The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the division bench was set aside and the judgment of the judgment of the single bench was restored.