IMPORTANT POINT
The authorities can cancel the selection of respondent on the ground that he was overage when respondent misrepresented on the aspect of overage relexation in his application.

Headnote:Promissory Estoppel-Appointment of respondent to post of Airman in the technical trade under the Indian Force-Respondent overage-Claimed relaxation on ground that he was having not only higher secondary education but also +2 education-High Court directing appellant to consider his application-Respondent in fact had failed in Chemistry paper of +2 education-Whether estopped from being considered? (Yes)-Appeal allowed.
       Held : The question, therefore, is whether in a case of this nature the principle of promissory estoppel should be invoked. It is well known that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles. A person who has himself misled the authority by making a fake statement, cannot invoke this principle. If his misrepresentation misled the authority into taking a decision which on discovery of the misrepresentation is sought to be cancelled. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation in his application to the effect that he had passed the Intermediate examination. As we have found above, this finding of the High Court is erroneous, contrary to record and therefore must be set aside. In his application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the Secondary examination as well as the Higher Secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidature was considered on the basis that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, as in that case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of age. However, the mark sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, was factually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the respondent could not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel, and the High Court was clearly erred in law in invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The judgement and order of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained. (Para 7)
       In the result this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside, and writ petition filed by the respondent dismissed. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-In this appeal by special leave the appellants herein have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated 12th March, 1992 in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 1969 of 1991, whereby the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, herein directed the appellants to appoint the petitioner on the post of Airman in the technical trade under the Indian Air Force, and to send him for training. The High Court set aside the decision of the appellants not permitting the respondent to join the aforesaid post after selection, on the ground that he was not eligible for the said post in terms of the advertisement. In doing so, the High Court invoked the principle of promissory estoppel and held that having selected the respondent for appointment, and the respondent having discontinued his studies in the Orissa School of Mining Engineering, the appellants could not be permitted to prevent the respondent from joining the post.

2. It is not in dispute that an advertisement was published in the Employment News of 17th - 23rd February, 1990 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Airman in the technical trade under the Indian Air Force. The advertisement prescribed that the candidate should be born between 31st March, 1971 and 1st July, 1997, but the upper age limit was relaxable by two years in case of those who had passed the Intermediate examination. It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the respondent is 13th July, 1970. Therefore, he was not eligible for the post as he was over age, but however age relaxation was permissible in the case of the respondent if he had passed the Intermediate examination.

3. The petitioner was invited to appear at a written test and thereafter the primary examination etc. He was thereafter medically examined and found suitable for appointment. His name appeared in the All India merit list and a call letter was issued to him to report at the Airman Selection Centre. Bhubneshwar on 11.3.1991. However, when the respondent reported at the aforesaid Centre, he was informed that his selection had been cancelled. The respondent thereafter represented to the authorities concerned but to no avail. He was, therefore, compelled to file the writ petition before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order.

4. The High Court applying the principle of promissory estoppel and relying upon the decision of this Court in Sri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra AIR 1976 SC 376 and Ms. Sangeeta Srivastava Vs. Prof. U.N. Singh, AIR 1980 Delhi 27, held that the authorities having selected the respondent and having called upon him to report at the Selection Centre, they could not be permitted to cancel the selection on the ground that he was over age. In coming to this conclusion the Court observed that the respondent was not guilty of having misrepresented any fact. Moreover, the petitioner gave up his studies which he was pursuing in the Orissa School of Minning Engineering, and thereby acted to his detriment. On these facts, the High Court found that the principle of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the appellants. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

5. Unfortunately, the High Court has neither noticed nor fully considered the factual averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants. It has only noticed the fact that the selection had been cancelled on the ground that on the date of application the petitioner was over age. It observed that since the date of birth was correctly disclosed in the application, it was known to the authorities that the respondent did not fulfill the eligibility condition regarding age. As per the advertisement the upper age limit was relaxable by two years inter alia, in case of candidates who had passed the Intermediate examination. The petitioner had not made any statement in his application that he had pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1036

IMPORTANT POINTThe authorities can cancel the selection of respondent on the ground that he was overage when respondent misrepresented on the aspect of overage relexation in his application.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
The authorities can cancel the selection of respondent on the ground that he was overage when respondent misrepresented on the aspect of overage relexation in his application.