2022 Supreme(SC) 529

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Krishna Rai (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Banaras Hindu University Through Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4578-4580 of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.31186-88 of 2016)
Decided on : 16-06-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Estoppel – Principle of estoppel cannot override law – If 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 eye of law.
(2) Selection – Suitability criteria is to be laid down by rule making authority – Selection criteria cannot be laid down by Selection Board/Selection Committee unless specifically authorized.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Promotion – Class IV employees to Class III working in Banaras Hindu University – Only test required for eligible candidates was to pass in departmental test i.e. test of simple English, Hindi and Arithmetic – In present case, Board of Examiners comprising of large number of Members changed entire procedure and they established a completely new procedure – They awarded 20 marks for type test treating it to be compulsory, 60 marks for written departmental test of simple English, Hindi and Arithmetic with 20 marks for each subject and further introduced an interview of 20 marks – There is neither any provision nor any other indication in Manual duly approved by Executive Council for preparing such a merit list based upon marks awarded under different heads – Promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority subject to passing departmental written test, once candidate was eligible having five years’ experience in Class IV and matriculation certificate or equivalent – Board of Examiners on their own changed criteria and made it purely merit based by introducing an interview and also preparing the merit list on the basis of marks awarded in type test, written test and interview – In present case, firstly, there was no authorization to Board of Examiners to lay down selection criteria and there was clear violation of suitability criteria laid down by rule making authority – Division Bench fell in error in applying principle of estoppel that appellants having appeared in interview and being unsuccessful proceeded to challenge the same – Division Bench having approved reasoning of Single Judge, ought not to have interfered in Judgment of Single Judge on a technical plea – Impugned judgment of Division Bench set aside and Judgment of Single Judge restored. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 30 and 33)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Estoppel – Principle of estoppel cannot override law – Manual duly approved by Executive Council will prevail over any such principle of estoppel or acquiescence – There can be no estoppel against law – If 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 eye of law. (Paras 23 and 31)

(C) Service law – Selection – Suitability criteria is to be laid down by rule making authority – Selection criteria cannot be laid down by Selection Board/Selection Committee unless specifically authorized. (Para 30)

Facts of the case:

In present Civil Appeals, this Court has been called upon to decide whether principle of estoppel and acquiescence will prevail over statutory service rules prescribing the procedure for promotion of Class IV employees to Class III working in the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, a Central University. Single Judge was of the view that the statutory rules would prevail and must be strictly adhered to, whereas, Division Bench, although, agreeing with the reasoning of Single Judge that the procedure prescribed under the rules was violated, still proceeded to set aside judgment of Single Judge applying the principle of estoppel and acquiescence over and above eligibility conditions having statutory force laid down by statutory rules. Single Judge had allowed writ petition filed by the appellants and after setting aside the promotion of respondent Nos.3 to 16, had directed the BHU to carry out exercise for promotion afresh as per the law and observations made in the said judgment. Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside judgment of Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the original writ petitioners are in appeal before this Court.

Findings of Court:

Some of appellants have retired and a couple of them have also died, post retirement. Rest of them are still working. Since the examinations have already been held in the year 2006-07, all appellants who are found to be eligible for promotion as per the existing rules and as directed by 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.

Result : Appeals allowed.