1. Dispute over promotion criteria for teaching faculty — applicability of an executive career progression scheme versus statutory recruitment regulations under the ESI Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 104
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
The Employees' State Insurance Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2022
Decided On : 20-01-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nandini Pandey, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Dharm Singh M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nandini Pandey, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Dharm Singh M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
Statutory regulations prevail over executive instructions or office memorandums. Erroneous recruitment advertisements cannot override statutory rules, and concessions made by counsel on points of law do not create estoppel against statutory regulations.
Headnote:
ESIC - Promotion Dispute - Employees' State Insurance Act 1948, Section 17 - ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2008 and 2015 - The court analyzed the applicability of the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2008 and 2015, the DACP Scheme, and the Office Memorandum dated 29 October 2008. It held that the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, having statutory effect, override the DACP Scheme and the Office Memorandum. The court also emphasized that there can be no estoppel against a statute or regulations having a statutory effect.
Fact of the Case:
The Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) appealed against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which rejected the petition filed by ESIC against the promotion of contesting respondents to the post of Associate Professor under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme. The dispute revolved around the applicable regulations for promotion of the contesting respondents from the post of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, having statutory effect, override the DACP Scheme and the Office Memorandum. The court also emphasized that there can be no estoppel against a statute or regulations having a statutory effect.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the applicable rules/regulations for the promotion of the contesting respondents from the post of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, namely the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2008, the DACP Scheme, or the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, having statutory effect, override the DACP Scheme and the Office Memorandum. The court also emphasized that there can be no estoppel against a statute or regulations having a statutory effect.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 5 September 2019 were set aside. The revised seniority list of the Teaching Cadre at the appellant corporation should reflect the promotions of the contesting respondents in accordance with the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 and not the DACP Scheme.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The core issue in the case revolves around the applicable rules and regulations governing the promotion of employees from the position of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor within the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The dispute centers on whether the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2008, the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, or the Office Memorandum implementing the DACP Scheme should apply (!) (!) .
-
The Office Memorandum dated 29 October 2008 extended the DACP Scheme to all Medical and Dental Doctors in Central Government employment, including the teaching cadre, and provided for promotion after two years of service. However, such executive instructions do not have statutory force unless incorporated into regulations (!) (!) (!) .
-
The ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2008 and 2015 are statutory regulations made under the powers conferred by the relevant sections of the ESIC Act. These regulations prescribe specific qualifying service periods for promotion—four years under the 2008 regulations and five years under the 2015 regulations—thus overriding the DACP Scheme's provisions (!) (!) .
-
The regulations issued by ESIC, being statutory in nature, have the force of law and take precedence over executive instructions or memoranda, especially when there is a conflict between them. Any such executive instructions cannot override or supersede the regulations unless they are duly incorporated or amended through proper legislative procedures (!) (!) .
-
The application of the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, which stipulate a minimum of five years of service for promotion, overrides the earlier regulations and the DACP Scheme for the respondents, as their joining dates and service periods are governed by these regulations (!) (!) .
-
The advertisements issued by ESIC mentioning the DACP Scheme do not have the force of law and cannot create a right that conflicts with the statutory regulations. In case of inconsistency, the regulations will prevail over such advertisements (!) (!) (!) .
-
The legal principle that regulations made under statutory authority are binding and have the force of law is reaffirmed. These regulations are not subject to unilateral change by executive instructions unless properly amended according to the statutory procedures (!) (!) .
-
Concessions or representations made by legal counsel or in advertisements do not have the effect of overriding statutory regulations or procedures. Even if the appellant’s counsel made a concession, it does not affect the statutory position that regulations take precedence (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasizes that there can be no estoppel against a statute or statutory regulations, and the stance taken in legal proceedings must adhere to the applicable legal framework, regardless of prior concessions or representations (!) (!) .
-
The final ruling allows the appeal, setting aside the earlier judgment, and directs that the promotion and seniority list should be based on the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, not the DACP Scheme or any executive memoranda (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of statutory regulations in governing employment conditions and promotions, reaffirm the supremacy of law over executive instructions, and clarify that any amendments or executive memoranda must be properly incorporated into regulations to have legal effect.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether executive instructions override statutory recruitment regulations and if representations in recruitment advertisements create binding rights for promotion. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Statutory regulations prevail over executive instructions; recruitment advertisements cannot override statutory rules; concessions on legal points by counsel do not bind the client or court. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. Statutory regulations override executive instructions and recruitment advertisements; there is no estoppel against legislative action or statutory regulations. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 23 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — promotions to be governed by statutory recruitment regulations rather than the executive scheme. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
6. Do executive instructions or office memorandums override statutory rules or regulations?
No. Statutory regulations prevail over executive instructions. While office memorandums can supplement statutory rules if the rules are silent, they cannot contravene, amend, or supersede them. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
7. Can a candidate claim a right based on eligibility criteria in a recruitment advertisement if they conflict with statutory rules?
No. In the event of a conflict between a recruitment advertisement and statutory service regulations, the statutory rules prevail. An erroneous advertisement does not create a right in favor of a candidate. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
8. Can a party be estopped from applying statutory regulations based on prior representations or concessions made by counsel?
No. There is no estoppel against legislative action or statutory regulations. Additionally, concessions made by counsel on points of law are not binding on the client or the court. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
| (A) | Introduction | 3 |
| (B) | Submissions | 5 |
| (C) | Analysis | 12 |
| (D) | Conclusion | 26 |
(A) Introduction
1. Leave granted.
2. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation1 [“ESIC” (interchangeably referred to as the appellant)] is in appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 5 September 2019. The Division Bench rejected the petition filed by the appellant against the promotion of the contesting respondents-Respondent 3 to 25, to the post of “Associate Professor” under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression 2 [“DACP”] Scheme as opposed to the appellant’s recruitment regulations.
3. ESIC, the appellant, is a statutory body constituted under the Employees' State Insurance Act 19483 [“ESI Act”]. The recruitment and promotion of its teaching staff are governed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Medical Teaching Faculty Posts) Recruitment Regulations 20154 [“ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015”] which came into effect on 5 July 2015. Respondent 3 to 255 [Interchangeably referred to as “contesting respondents”] joined the appellant as Assistant Professors at ESIC Model Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. They joined service between 7 February 2012 and 26 June 2014. The Central Government, through the Central Health Service Division of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, had issued the DACP Scheme through an Office Memorandum dated 29 October 2008. The DACP Scheme contemplated promotion as Associate Professor upon completion of two years of service in the post of Assistant Professor as an officer under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. After two years of service as Assistant Professor on 2 February 2017, the contesting respondents sought promotion under the DACP Scheme and instituted proceedings before Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru6 [“CAT”].
4. On 7 February 2018, the CAT relied on the submission by the Counsel for the appellant and held that the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 were not relevant for adjudication of the matter. The CAT also relied on a letter dated 23 September 2014 addressed by the Joint Director of ESIC to the Dean of ESIC which mentioned the implementation of the DACP Scheme to the Medical Officer Cadres. Thus, the CAT directed the appellant to consider the contesting respondents for promotion under the DACP Scheme.
5. The appellant challenged the order of the CAT in a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court dismissed the petition on 5 September 2019 by holding that:
(i) Since the contesting respondents were recruited before the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 came into effect, they would get the benefit of the DACP Scheme.
(ii) The DACP Scheme has statutory effect under Section 17 of the ESI Act. The ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 have departed from the DACP Scheme without seeking the prior approval of the Central Government.
(iii) Counsel for the appellant conceded that the appellant would implement the DACP Scheme and the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 do not apply.
(B) Submissions
6. Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged the following submissions:
(i) The appellant is an autonomous statutory corporation incorporated under the ESI Act. It is within the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour and Employment of the Government of India.
(ii) Section 97 of the ESI Act confers power on the appellant to frame its own regulations. The terms and conditions of service of Assistant Professors are governed by the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015. These regulations stipulate that a minimum of five years of qualifying service as Assistant Professor is mandatory for promotion as Associate Professor. The ESIC Regulations 2015 cannot be overridden by the DACP Scheme.
(iii) The Office Memorandum dated 29 October 2008 implementing the DACP Scheme is applicable to employees of the Ministries and Departments of the Central Government, but not
