Case Note & Summary
The case involves a review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra and another against an order passed in Writ Petition No.7955 of 2006. The respondent, Sachin S. Hundekari, is the grandson of a freedom fighter. His grandmother, the widow of the freedom fighter, nominated him for government service under the freedom fighter scheme. The respondent applied for service, and an inquiry report showed he was dependent on his grandmother, who had since expired. His application was rejected by an order dated 7th June 2005. The respondent challenged this order in the writ petition. During the hearing, the then Associate Advocate General representing the State conceded that the rejection was hyper-technical and suggested that the government be directed to provide appropriate employment. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and directed the State to absorb the respondent based on the nomination. The State sought review, arguing that the order could not have been passed because the requisites for appointment upon nomination were not complied with, specifically that the Employment Exchange was not intimated and newspaper advertisements were not given as required by the Government Circular dated 19th November 2003. The core legal issue was whether a concession by counsel contrary to law binds the party. The court held that it is settled law that a concession on law does not bind the party, citing Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan & Anr. (1998) 6 SCC 538. The court allowed the review petition, set aside the earlier order, and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondent could not be employed without compliance with the circular.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Concession by Counsel - Binding Effect - Concession contrary to law does not bind the party - The court held that a concession made by counsel which is not in accordance with law cannot bind the party, as settled in Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan & Anr. (1998) 6 SCC 538. The review petition was allowed and the earlier order based on such concession was set aside. (Paras 1, 7-8) B) Service Law - Freedom Fighter Scheme - Appointment - Compliance with Government Circular - The court held that appointment under the freedom fighter scheme requires compliance with the Government Circular dated 19th November 2003, including intimation to Employment Exchange and newspaper advertisements. The respondent's application was rejected as these requisites were not complied with. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a concession granted by counsel on behalf of a party to court which is not in accordance with law can bind the party.
Final Decision
Review petition allowed. Order dated 7th June 2005 set aside. Writ Petition No.7955 of 2006 dismissed.
Law Points
- Concession by counsel contrary to law does not bind the party
- Review petition maintainable when order based on erroneous concession
- Freedom fighter scheme appointment requires compliance with government circular
