The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, has held that an erroneous concession on a question of law made by a counsel before a court is not binding on the client, particularly when it contravenes statutory recruitment rules. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar also reiterated the settled legal principle that a candidate on a waitlist has no vested right to appointment, and any such right extinguishes once all advertised vacancies are filled by the selected candidates.
The Court set aside a judgment of the Calcutta High Court that had directed the Union of India and All India Radio to absorb a waitlisted candidate from a 1997 recruitment process based on an assurance given by their counsel before the Central Administrative Tribunal in 1999.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio, Eastern Zone, for the post of Technician, where three posts were reserved for the Scheduled Castes (SC) category. The respondent, Subit Kumar Das, was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Reserved Panel (waitlist), with the stipulation that he would be appointed only if any of the three selected candidates failed to join. However, all three selected candidates joined their posts.
Aggrieved, Mr. Das approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 1997. During the proceedings, on January 15, 1999, the counsel for the appellants (Union of India) made a statement, which was recorded by the Tribunal, that “as soon as vacancy would arise against the SC quota, the applicant would be absorbed.”
On December 9, 2004, the Tribunal dismissed Mr. Das’s challenge to the selection process on merits, finding no procedural flaws or bias. However, relying on the 1999 statement, it directed the appellants to consider absorbing him against an available vacancy. This direction was largely upheld by the Calcutta High Court in 2009.
Following a fresh recruitment notice in 2013, Mr. Das again approached the Tribunal, which directed the appellants to act on the earlier orders. The government, in a speaking order dated February 19, 2016, rejected his claim, stating that the 1997 vacancies were filled, Mr. Das had crossed the maximum age limit, and the earlier assurance could not override the Recruitment Rules.
After further litigation, the Calcutta High Court, in its final order on June 25, 2024, set aside the government’s rejection and directed the appellants to absorb Mr. Das with notional effect from July 19, 2013, primarily on the ground that the 1999 assurance was not honoured. This High Court order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the Union of India, Advocate Madhusmita Bora argued that the High Court’s direction was erroneous as the respondent was merely a waitlisted candidate from 1997 and had no vested right to appointment. She contended that implementing the order would mean absorbing a candidate after more than twenty-five years. The core of her argument was that the 1999 statement was a concession on a point of law, contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules, and therefore, could not bind the appellants.
Conversely, Advocate Rakesh Kumar, representing Mr. Das, argued that the Union of India, as a model employer, could not be permitted to disregard a solemn statement made before the Tribunal. He submitted that his client should not be denied relief on grounds of being over the age limit and that the appellants were attempting to take advantage of their own wrong.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, first examined the rights of a waitlisted candidate. The bench observed that the law is well-settled and referred to the three-judge bench decision in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association Vs. State of Gujarat and others, stating, “A waiting list prepared in an examination… does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join…” The Court concluded that any right Mr. Das could claim as a waitlisted candidate “extinguished when all the selected candidates joined on their respective posts.”
The judgment then turned to the central issue: the legal effect of the statement made by the appellants’ counsel on January 15, 1999. The Court held that such a statement cannot “operate in eternity contrary to the Recruitment Rules.”
The bench decisively ruled that a party is not bound by an erroneous concession made by its counsel on a question of law. Citing its previous judgments in Uptron India Limited Vs. Shammi Bhan and another and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha & another Vs. Dr. K. Santhakumari, the Court observed, “…a wrong concession on a question of law, made by a counsel, is not binding on his client. Such concession cannot constitute a just ground for a binding precedent.”
The Court reasoned that giving effect to the 1999 statement would lead to a violation of statutory rules. It would “result in a waitlisted candidate being given an appointment notwithstanding the fact that all selected candidates in the said recruitment process had duly joined their posts.” The Court noted this would “amount to filling in one post in the subsequent recruitment on the basis of an exercise carried out in the previous recruitment,” thereby causing prejudice to new candidates and impermissibly extending the life of a defunct waitlist.
Finding that the High Court had “glossed over these vital aspects,” the Supreme Court concluded that its judgment was “unsustainable in law.”
In its final verdict, the Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated June 25, 2024, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
