Summary
ESIC teaching staff claimed promotion after two years under the Central Government’s DACP scheme, relying on advertisements and counsel’s concession. The Court held that ESIC’s statutory recruitment regulations prevailed over inconsistent executive memoranda and advertisements. The 2015 regulations required five years’ qualifying service and recorded Central Government approval. A mistaken concession on law could not displace them. The High Court’s order was set aside and revision of seniority in accordance with the regulations directed.
Issues
- Whether the DACP memorandum or ESIC’s statutory recruitment regulations governed teaching-cadre promotions.
- Whether advertisements or counsel’s concession prevented reliance on the statutory regulations.
Provisions considered
- Section 17(2)(a) and Section 97(1) and (3), Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948Recruitment regulations had statutory effect, and the 2015 preamble recorded the Central Government approval required for departure from corresponding Central service conditions. (¶¶ 10-15, 27)
- Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, ESIC (Medical Teaching Faculty Posts) Recruitment Regulations, 2015The five-year qualifying-service requirement prevailed over the DACP memorandum’s two-year provision and governed the resulting seniority revision. (¶¶ 12, 19, 26-28)
Held
- Statutory regulations bind the corporation and its employees. Executive instructions may supplement rules consistently but cannot override or supplant them. The DACP memorandum and internal communications could not replace the ESIC recruitment regulations without the necessary regulatory amendment. (¶ 11-19)
- The 2015 regulations superseded the 2008 regulations and required five years’ qualifying service for the relevant promotion. Their preamble recorded Central Government approval. The respondents had not challenged either set of regulations before the CAT or High Court. (¶¶ 12, 19, 27)
- Recruitment advertisements mentioning DACP did not create an enforceable entitlement contrary to the governing regulations. Statutory service requirements prevailed over the inconsistent representation. (¶¶ 20-22, 27)
- Although inadequate instructions to counsel were disapproved, a mistaken concession on a matter of law did not bind the court or estop reliance on statutory regulations. This was distinguished from the ordinary effect of unequivocal factual admissions. (¶ 23-26)
- The High Court’s order was set aside. The revised teaching-cadre seniority list was to reflect promotions under the 2015 regulations rather than the DACP scheme. (¶ 26-30)
Result
ESIC appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; seniority revision to reflect promotions under the 2015 recruitment regulations.