Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a challenge by Class IV employees of Banaras Hindu University (BHU) against the promotion of 14 Class IV employees to Class III (Junior Clerk) posts. The University issued a notification on 17.12.2005 inviting applications for promotion under 25% quota, prescribing eligibility as per para 6.4 of the BHU Manual: five years of service, matriculation, and a typing test at 30 wpm. The Board of Examiners, however, introduced a written test and interview, awarding marks out of 100 (20 for typing, 60 for written, 20 for interview). The appellants, who were unsuccessful, filed a writ petition challenging the selection on the ground that the Board had no authority to alter the procedure. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashing the appointments and directing fresh selection. The Division Bench reversed, applying estoppel and acquiescence as the appellants had participated without protest. The Supreme Court held that statutory rules must prevail; the Board of Examiners had no power to amend the eligibility conditions, and the principle of estoppel cannot override statutory rules. The Court restored the Single Judge's order, setting aside the promotions and directing fresh selection strictly in accordance with the Manual.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Statutory Rules vs. Estoppel - Banaras Hindu University Manual, para 6.4 - The issue was whether the principle of estoppel and acquiescence could override statutory service rules prescribing the promotion procedure. The Supreme Court held that statutory rules must prevail and be strictly adhered to; the Board of Examiners had no authority to alter the eligibility conditions or introduce an interview. The Division Bench erred in applying estoppel and acquiescence over statutory rules. (Paras 3-4, 14-16) B) Service Law - Promotion - Rules of Game - Banaras Hindu University Manual, para 6.4 - The Board of Examiners changed the selection procedure by introducing an interview and awarding marks for type test, written test, and interview, which was not provided in the Manual. The Court held that the rules of the game cannot be changed during the game; the selection was illegal and without jurisdiction. (Paras 9-11, 14-16) C) Service Law - Promotion - Authority to Amend Rules - Banaras Hindu University Manual, para 6.4 - The Executive Council alone had the authority to amend or modify the procedure/eligibility prescribed under para 6.4 of the Manual. The Board of Examiners exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the procedure. (Paras 8, 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether principle of estoppel and acquiescence will prevail over statutory service rules prescribing the procedure for promotion of Class IV employees to Class III in Banaras Hindu University.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Judgment of Division Bench set aside. Judgment of learned Single Judge restored. Promotions of respondent Nos.3 to 16 quashed. BHU directed to hold fresh selection strictly in accordance with para 6.4 of the Manual within three months. Costs of Rs.50,000 awarded by Single Judge upheld.
Law Points
- Statutory rules prevail over estoppel and acquiescence
- Rules of game cannot be changed mid-process
- Board of Examiners cannot amend eligibility conditions
- Executive Council alone can modify rules
- Promotion procedure must be strictly adhered to
