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

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. 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 (!) (!) .

2. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

3. 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 (!) (!) .

4. 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 (!) (!) .

5. 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 (!) (!) .

6. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

7. 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 (!) (!) .

8. 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 (!) (!) .

9. 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 (!) (!) .

10. 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.