Neither Client Nor Court Is Bound By Lawyer's Admissions As To Matters Of Law Or Legal Conclusions: Supreme Court

This appeal arose out of the proceedings that were instituted before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru by respondents in the current matter who had joined as Assistant Professors at ESIC Model Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru between 7 February 2012 and 26 June 2014. Their contention was that a scheme issued by Central Government on 29 October 2008 had contemplated that an Assistant Professor was to be promoted as an Associate professor once they had completed two years in the service on the post of Assistant Professor and thus, on completion of two years in service, the respondents applied to CAT, Bengaluru seeking such promotion, in February 2017. CAT, Bengaluru held that ESIC regulations were not applicable in the matter and directed the appellant (ESIC) to consider the respondents for promotion under the DACP scheme. The appellants then challenged the order of the CAT via a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka, which also dismissed the writ petition holding that since the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 came into effect after the respondents were recruited, they would be entitled to the benefit of promotion as per the DACP scheme. High Court of Karnataka also ruled that the

In appeal, the respondents contended that the appellant is estopped from urging that the DACP Scheme is not applicable to the Teaching Cadre at the ESIC since they have taken this stance before the CAT and in its writ petition before the High Court.

The bench expressed its disapproval at the lack of proper instructions being tendered to the Counsel of the appellant, but added that there can be no estoppel against a statute or regulations having a statutory effect. The bench noted the following observation made in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373:

"A lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We hasten to add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer's statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions"

The court, in this regard, also noted a judgment in Director of Elementary Education, Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo (2019) 10 SCC 674. Therefore, the bench held that the concession of the Counsel for the appellant before the CAT does not preclude the finding on the law that is arrived at by this Court

Click here to read/download the judgment