2022 (6) TMI 1436 - SC - Indian Laws

Principle of estoppel and acquiescence - preference over statutory service Rules prescribing the procedure for promotion of Class-IV employees to Class-III working in the Banaras Hindu University BHU Varanasi a Central University or not - HELD THAT - The only test required for eligible candidates was to pass in the departmental test i.e. the test of simple English Hindi and Arithmetic. Thus if an eligible candidate passes in the written test of simple English Hindi and Arithmetic and also passes in the type test would be entitled to be placed in the seniority list for promotion - 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. In the case of M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) JAMNAGAR 2015 (5) TMI 557 - SUPREME COURT it has been laid down 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 impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 29.07.2016 is set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2011 is restored - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the principle of estoppel and acquiescence over statutory service rules.
2. Legitimacy of the selection process for promotion from Class-IV to Class-III employees in Banaras Hindu University (BHU).
3. Authority of the Board of Examiners to alter eligibility conditions and selection procedures.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Principle of Estoppel and Acquiescence Over Statutory Service Rules:
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the principle of estoppel and acquiescence could override statutory service rules. The Division Bench had previously applied the principle of estoppel, reasoning that the appellants, having participated in the selection process without protest, could not challenge it after being unsuccessful. However, the Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel cannot override statutory rules. The Court emphasized that statutory rules approved by the Executive Council must prevail over any principle of estoppel or acquiescence. The judgment stated, "It is settled principle that principle of estoppel cannot override the law."

2. Legitimacy of the Selection Process for Promotion from Class-IV to Class-III Employees in BHU:
The selection process for promotion from Class-IV to Class-III positions at BHU was scrutinized. The original advertisement for promotion specified eligibility criteria, including a typing test and a written test. However, the Board of Examiners introduced an interview and altered the selection criteria, which was not authorized by the statutory rules. The learned Single Judge found that the Board of Examiners' actions were illegal and without jurisdiction, as they changed the "rules of the game" during the selection process. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the Board of Examiners could not alter the established procedure laid down by the Executive Council.

3. Authority of the Board of Examiners to Alter Eligibility Conditions and Selection Procedures:
The Court examined whether the Board of Examiners had the authority to change the eligibility conditions and selection procedures. It was found that the Board acted beyond its jurisdiction by introducing an interview and changing the criteria for promotion. The statutory rules mandated that promotions should be based on seniority and passing a departmental written test, with the typing test being a conditional requirement. The Supreme Court reiterated that only the Executive Council had the authority to amend or modify the eligibility conditions, and the Board of Examiners' actions were unauthorized and invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and restoring the learned Single Judge's decision. The Court directed BHU to conduct fresh selections for promotion in accordance with the statutory rules and existing procedures. The judgment emphasized that statutory rules approved by the Executive Council must be strictly adhered to, and any deviation by the Board of Examiners was illegal and without jurisdiction. The principle of estoppel could not be applied to override statutory service rules. The Court ordered that all eligible appellants be extended consequential benefits, including those who had retired or passed away, with benefits extended to their legal heirs.