Whether principle of estoppel can override the law?

 It is settled principle that principle of estoppel cannot override the law. The manual duly approved by the Executive Council will prevail over any such principle of estoppel or acquiescence.

31. Further in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (preventive), Jamnagar8, it has been laid down that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

 Civil Appeal Nos. 45784580 of 2022 

KRISHNA RAI (Dead) THROUGH LRs & ORS. Vs BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY THROUGH REGISTRAR & ORS.

Coram: DINESH MAHESHWARI; VIKRAM NATH, JJ. 

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Dated: JUNE 16, 2022

Print Page

Supreme Court: Candidate Not Estopped From Challenging Selection Process if there is misconstruction of statutory rules

The maintainability of

the very challenge by the appellant has been questioned on the ground

that she having partaken in the selection process cannot later challenge it

due to mere failure in selection. The counsel for respondents relied upon a

catena of decisions of this Court to substantiate his objection.

17. It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate

from challenging the selection process after having failed in it as iterated

by this Court in a plethora of judgements including Manish Kumar

Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576, observing as follows:

“16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part

in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19%

marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the appellant is not

entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the

appellant's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have

even dreamed of challenging the selection. The appellant invoked

jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit

list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the appellant

clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High

Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ

petition.” See also: Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC], Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P.[(2007) 11

SCC 522], Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [(2008) 4 SCC 171] and K.A.

Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) 5 SCC 515]

The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent candidates from

trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein

every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection, challenges it in the  hope of getting a second chance.

18. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the

candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts

the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a

candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating

consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely

because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is

sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9482 OF 2019

Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai  Vs  State of Bihar 

Author:

SURYA KANT, J.

Print Page

What will be effect of non-impleadment of necessary party in the matter when selection process is assailed ?

 In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht & Ors.[9] this Court while dealing with the concept of necessary parties and the effect of non-impleadment of such a party in the matter when the selection process is assailed observed thus: -

“7. ……. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 786, wherein the Court has explained the distinction between necessary party, proper party and proforma party and further held that if a person who is likely to suffer from the order of the Court and has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. More so, proviso to Order I, Rule IX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called CPC) provide that non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly, provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141, CPC but the principles enshrined therein are applicable. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat; AIR 1965 SC 1153; Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal, Khodidas Barat & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 2105; and Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 88).

8. In Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 167; and Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 768 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 824), it has been held that if a person challenges the selection process, successful candidates or at least some of them are necessary parties.”

Supreme Court of India

Vijay Kumar Kaul & Ors vs U.O.I. & Ors on 25 May, 2012

Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Dipak Misra

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CIVIL APPEAL No. 4986-4989 OF 2007

Print Page

Whether selection of candidate is vitiated on the ground that all candidate's were called for interview?

 Furthermore, we find that there is no rule of law as to
the ratio of number of vacancies to the number of
candidates for being called for interview; although it may
be a rule of prudence. This Court has found in Mohinder
Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 662,
as also in Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4
SCC 417, that although it may be improper for the Selection
Committee to call such large number of candidates for
interview, but selection cannot be vitiated merely on this
ground if such an action is not tainted by mala fide or
oblique motive. In Mohinder Sain Garg (supra), this Court
gave one more reason not to accept this argument which
squarely applies to this case as well; this Court found
that the Respondents stood no chance of being called for
interview if candidates upto three times the number of
posts were called for interview. In the case on hand, on
this score, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh
has made a similar contention. Even the appellants herein
have not presented a case that had they been called for
interview, being only four times the number of vacancies,
they would have been short listed in that list. Thus, we
find this argument as a misplaced one.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6549 OF 2014
HC Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. ...Appellant(s)
:Versus:
Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Citation;AIR 2015 SC2342

Print Page