Summary
The Sports Authority of India challenged the Delhi High Court's refusal to recall an order that had disposed of its writ petition on its own counsel's statement that it would comply with the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to consider the respondents, contractual physiotherapists, as 'initial constituents' under Rule 4 of the 2022 Recruitment Rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals: a party cannot resile from an order passed on its concession unless fraud or deception is shown, and in any case the Tribunal had rightly held the respondents entitled to consideration as initial constituents.
Issues
- Whether a party on whose counsel's concession an order was passed can later challenge that order before a higher court on the plea that counsel misunderstood the order being complied with.
- Whether the respondents, engaged on contract after a selection process, were entitled to be considered as 'initial constituents' of SAI under the 1992 and 2022 Recruitment Rules.
Provisions considered
- Rule 4 (Initial Constitution), Sports Authority of India (Sports Sciences and Sports Medicine) Staff Recruitment Rules, 1992Employees working on an ad hoc basis on a scheduled post when the rules came into force are, after approval by a Screening Committee, deemed appointed under the rules; such a person is an employee of SAI, not a mere daily-wage or contractual worker. The Tribunal held this provision was not superseded by the 2022 Rules and both continue to operate. (¶¶ 2, 3, 12)
- Rule 4 (Initial Constitution), Sports Authority of India Executive Cadre (Grade A) Staff Recruitment Rules, 2022All employees working on any post in Annexure-I on the date the rules came into force are deemed appointed under them. The Tribunal directed SAI to consider the respondents as initial constituents under this rule; SAI conceded that course before the High Court, and the Court held that an initial constituent is a regular employee under SAI's direct control, no longer contractual. (¶¶ 2, 4, 12, 13)
Held
- Once an order has been passed on a compromise or concession made by a party, that party cannot turn around and challenge the order before a higher court unless it is a case of fraud or deception; this is impermissible on principle as well as in law. The High Court rightly rejected at the threshold SAI's plea that its counsel had merely misunderstood the Tribunal's order, since SAI never stated on affidavit that counsel was uninstructed or unauthorised, and the undertaking recorded was in the very terms of the Tribunal's direction. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Even otherwise the appellants had no case on merits. The Tribunal correctly held that the notification of the 2022 Rules did not supersede the 'initial constitution' provision of the 1992 Rules, that the respondents had been recruited under the relevant regulations through a due selection process so that their appointments were irregular but not illegal, and that they were therefore entitled to be considered as part of SAI's 'initial constitution' under the 2022 Rules. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- For all practical purposes, once an employee is considered an 'initial constituent' of SAI he is no longer to be treated as a contractual employee but as a regular employee under SAI's direct enrolment and control. The respondents had served SAI, the rules provided a route for treating them as initial constituents, the Tribunal directed consideration accordingly, and SAI had already conceded that status before the High Court. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the High Court's orders dated 28.02.2024 and 26.11.2024 stand; pending applications disposed of.