Summary
Banaras Hindu University advertised 14 Junior Clerk posts for promotion of Class-IV employees under paragraph 6.4 of its Manual, approved by the Executive Council, which required five years' service and matriculation, a departmental written test in simple English, Hindi and Arithmetic, and a typing test that could be passed within two years after promotion. The Board of Examiners instead introduced an interview and prepared a merit list on 100 marks (20 typing, 60 written, 20 interview), and promoted 14 juniors. A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court quashed the promotions and ordered a fresh exercise under the rules; the Division Bench agreed that the Board had unlawfully changed the procedure but reversed on the ground that the unsuccessful candidates, having participated in the interview without protest, were estopped. The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's judgment.
Issues
- Whether the principle of estoppel or acquiescence, arising from participation in a selection process without protest, can prevail over statutory service rules prescribing the procedure and eligibility for promotion.
- Whether a Board of Examiners may introduce an interview and a marks-based merit list where the rules approved by the Executive Council prescribe promotion on seniority subject to passing a departmental test.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 6.4 — promotion of Class-IV employees to Junior Clerk, Banaras Hindu University Manual (Executive Council Resolutions No. 223 of 1980 and No. 131 of 1996)Eligible employees were to be promoted on seniority subject to passing the departmental written test; the typing test was not mandatory and could be cleared within two years after promotion. Only the Executive Council could amend this; the Board of Examiners' interview and 100-mark merit list were wholly without jurisdiction. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Article 309 (rule-making) — principles in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu, Constitution of IndiaA selection board or committee has no inherent jurisdiction to lay down selection criteria or add to prescribed qualifications unless specifically authorised by the rules; the rule-making function is legislative and cannot be assumed by implication. (¶ 30)
Held
- The rules of the game were made known in the notification and could not be changed during the game; the Board of Examiners had no authority to introduce an interview or prepare a merit list on marks when the Manual contemplated promotion on seniority subject to the departmental test, and the Division Bench itself approved this reasoning. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The Division Bench erred in applying estoppel merely because the appellants appeared in the interview and challenged the process only after failing; expecting Class-IV employees in service since 1977 to protest at the interview stage was far-fetched and unreasonable. Estoppel cannot override the law, and none of the decisions it relied on (N. Chandrashekharan, Utkal University, Chandra Prakash Tiwari, K.A. Nagmani, Madan Lal) involved a violation of statutory rules. (¶¶ 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- There can be no estoppel against law: if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner it must be done in that manner, and if not so done it has no existence in the eye of law (Tata Chemicals). (¶ 31)
- Since the examinations were held in 2006–07, all appellants found eligible under the existing rules are entitled to all consequential benefits, and the legal heirs of those who have died are entitled to the same. (¶ 34)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Allahabad High Court Division Bench's judgment of 29.07.2016 in Special Appeal Nos. 24, 9 and 25 of 2012 set aside and the Single Judge's judgment of 26.08.2011 quashing the promotions of respondents 3 to 16 and directing fresh selection strictly under the rules restored, with consequential benefits to eligible appellants and the legal heirs of those deceased.