Supreme Court Explains Features Of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

Observing that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be extended to the operation of a contract, the Supreme Court laid down the crucial features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

The features are as follows: -

"a. legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish, or anticipation;

b. legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise, or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings;

c. expectation that is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical, or invalid cannot be treated as a legitimate expectation;

d. legitimate expectation operates in relation to both substantive and procedural matters;

e. legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis.

f. a plea of legitimate expectation based on past practice can only be taken by someone who has dealings, or negotiations with a public authority. It cannot be invoked by a total stranger to the authority merely on the ground that the authority has a duty to act fairly generally."

The Top Court in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499 enunciated the doctrine of legitimate expectation being a creature of public law aimed at combating arbitrariness in executive action by public authorities. 

As explained in Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (2006) 8 SCC 381, a person can be said to have a “legitimate expectation” of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. In other words, it is an expectation of a benefit, relief, or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice.

The Court in Ram Pravesh Singh further held that "the doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice (as contrasted from legitimate expectation based on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a recognized legal relationship with the authority and not a total stranger unconnected with the authority or a person who had no previous dealings."

Background

In the present case, the Respondents-Teachers sought a writ of mandamus against the Appellant-Private Unaided Institution for not providing them a salary and benefits at par with salaries and benefits received by the Government Teachers. The Respondents had legitimate expectations that the Appellant would provide the same benefits and salary as received by the government teachers. However, the respondents were not able to prove that there was any express or implied promise made by the appellant regarding keeping their salary and service conditions intact. 

"There have been no past negotiations or dealings between the respondents and the appellant society as the dispute arose as soon as the appellant took over the administration of the school. Moreover, there is no statutory obligation on the appellant society which requires that the salaries and allowances of the respondents are to be kept at par with what is payable to teachers of Government institutions. Lastly, the appellant society, for the purposes of its relationship with its employees, cannot be regarded as a public or Government authority.", the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.

After finding that the Respondent-Teachers proved no legitimate expectations of receiving a salary at par with a government teacher from the Appellant, the Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation would have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

Also From Judgment - Writ Petition By Teachers Not Maintainable Against Private School Over Service Disputes : Supreme Court

Case Details: ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY NEW DELHI Versus SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7256-7259 OF 2024

Click here to read/download the judgment