'Estoppel Cannot Override Law' : Supreme Court Accepts Unsuccessful Candidates' Challenge To Selection Process Held Against Regulations

The Supreme Court recently held that the principle of estoppel or acquiescence will not apply in a selection process when it is held contrary to the relevant rules.

A bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath reiterated that "principle of estoppel cannot override the law" and that the procedure in the relevant service manual will prevail over the principle of estoppel or acquiescence.

The bench was considering an appeal relating to the filling up of 14 posts in Class III (Junior Clerk) in the Benarus Hindu University by way of promotion. The notification inviting applications from Class IV employees for promotion to Class III had not prescribed that interview will be conducted in addition to the typing test. The service rules also did not mention interview for promotion to Class III. However, the Board of Examiners conducted an interview as well, and finalized 14 candidates.

The selection process was challenged by some candidates, who did not get selected, before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that though the manual did not prescribe an interview, the Board of Examiners conducted interview by "changing the rules of the game". A single bench of the High Court set aside the selection process by holding that a grave error was committed by preparing the merit list on the basis of interview as well.

However, a division bench of the High Court, on appeal by the BHU, set aside the judgment of the single bench on the ground that the petitioners, after having participated in the interview without protest, are estopped from challenging the selection process after becoming unsuccessful. Challenging the division bench verdict, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the division bench fell in error by applying the principle of estoppel. According to para 6.4 of the Manual duly approved by the Executive Council, all Class-IV employees who had put in five years' service and passed matriculation examination or equivalent were eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk Grade, the Court noted.

Where eligible candidates had passed the departmental written test of simple English, Hindi, and Arithmetic, but could not pass the typing test, they would still be eligible for promotion and be placed in the seniority list provided that they qualify for the typing test within two years.

"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 observed.

 "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 Top 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 single bench was restored.

"..all the appellants who are found to be eligible for promotion as per the existing rules and as directed by the learned Single Judge, would be extended all consequential benefits. Further, where the appellants have died, the benefit would be extended to their legal heirs entitled under law for the same", the Court ordered.

Case Title : Krishna Rai (Dead) Through LRs versus The Benarus Hindu University & Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 553

Headnotes

Principle of Estoppel & Acquiescence - 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- 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 (Para 23).

Service Law - Selection process held in violation of service rules-High Court division bench applies principle of estoppel to reject challenge- Supreme Court sets aside the HC verdict.

Click here to read/download the judgment