1998 (1) TMI 512 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the doctrine of "Promissory Estoppel" can be invoked for the enforcement of a "promise" made contrary to law.
2. Whether the appellant and his colleagues are entitled to promotion to the posts of Lecturers in the Pharmacy Department based on the alleged promise by the Government and the Director, Medical Education and Training.

Summary:

Issue 1: Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
The appellant, a Demonstrator in the Pharmacy Department of S.N. Medical College, Agra, along with his colleagues, sought enforcement of a promise allegedly made by the Government and the Director, Medical Education and Training, to promote them to the posts of Lecturers. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, finding no statutory rules or executive instructions mandating such promotions. The appellant raised the plea of "Promissory Estoppel," arguing that the Government's assurance and preparation of a seniority list bound them to their promise. The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine of "Promissory Estoppel" could be invoked in this context.

The Court explained that "Promissory Estoppel" is an equitable doctrine to avoid injustice, preventing a party from going back on a promise that induced another party to alter their position to their detriment. However, the Court emphasized that estoppel cannot be used to defeat statutory provisions. Citing precedents, the Court reiterated that a promise contrary to law or outside the authority of the Government cannot be enforced through "Promissory Estoppel."

Issue 2: Entitlement to Promotion
The Court noted that the posts of Lecturers in the Pharmacy Department were filled by direct recruitment, with no statutory or executive provision for promoting Demonstrators to these posts. The High Court had found no evidence of any assurance given to the appellant or his colleagues regarding their promotion. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that even if such a promise was made, it could not be enforced as it would contravene the existing recruitment rules. The Court also highlighted the lack of specific and clear averments regarding the alleged promise and any detrimental reliance by the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of "Promissory Estoppel" could not be invoked to enforce a promise made contrary to law. The appellant and his colleagues were not entitled to promotion to the posts of Lecturers based on the alleged promise, as there were no statutory or executive provisions supporting such promotions. The Court emphasized the need for clear and specific pleadings to invoke the doctrine of "Promissory Estoppel." The appeal was dismissed without costs.