Whether Statement Made By Counsel On Question Of Law Is Binding?: Supreme Court Explains

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the All India Radio through its Director General approached the Apex Court challenging the direction issued by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court requiring them to absorb the services of the respondent on the post of Technician at the Eastern Zone of All India Radio under the Scheduled Castes (SC) category.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held, “It appears that the High Court was much impressed by the fact that the statement made on 15.01.1999 on behalf of the appellants was not being honoured. It is true that a statement made before the Court has its solemnity and the party making such statement is bound to comply with the same. At the same time, it has to be seen as to whether such statement in the form of a concession, if given effect to would result in violation of any statutory rules or regulations. If such consequence is likely to flow, it would be open for the affected party on whose behalf such concession in law was made to place before the Court the correct position of law and urge that it may not be compelled to give effect to an erroneous concession made on law.”

Factual Background

Pursuant to a requisition made by the All India Radio, Eastern Zone, for making an appointment to the post of Technician, names of various candidates maintained by the Employment Exchange were forwarded. Three posts of Technician were reserved for candidates belonging to the SC category. The Selection Committee selected three candidates. The name of the respondent was placed at Serial No.1 in the Reserved Panel. It was stated that the candidates placed in the Reserved Panel would be appointed only in case any of the three selected candidates did not join the said post for any reason. The respondent, aggrieved by the decision of the Selection Committee, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application challenging its decision and seeking his appointment to the post of Technician.

The Tribunal passed an interim order and directed that any appointment would be subject to the result of the Original Application. In the said proceedings, the respondent moved an interim application praying that no further appointment be made on the post of Technician without considering his name pursuant to the earlier recruitment process. In view of the statement made on behalf of the appellants that the case of the respondent would not be considered till the reserved quota of candidates from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category and Scheduled Tribes (ST) category were filled in, the appellants were directed to consider the case of the respondent in terms of the assurance given to the Tribunal and take steps to absorb him against the available vacancy.

In the year 2013, a fresh notice of recruitment for various posts, including that of Technician, came to be published at the instance of Prasar Bharti. The respondent again approached the Tribunal by seeking a direction that he be absorbed. In a speaking order, it was mentioned that in the absence of any vacant post being available, the respondent could not be absorbed against the vacancies notified in the advertisement of 2013. The Division Bench of the High Court directed the appellants to absorb the respondent on the post of Technician in any vacancy under the SC category in the Eastern Zone. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the entitlement of the respondent was as a waitlisted candidate qua the select list of 1997. There was no vested right in favour of the respondent to urge that he was entitled to be considered and appointed on any fresh vacancy arising in the future. The statement of the appellants had a limited operation to the extent that only if any of the selected candidates for the post of Technician in the SC category failed to join on the said post, the respondent could be appointed on such vacant post being the candidate at Serial No.1 in the Reserved Panel.

Referring to the statement made by the appellants, the Bench noted that giving effect to the statement 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 and there was no occasion to operate the wait list. “It would amount to filling in one post in the subsequent recruitment on the basis of an exercise carried out in the previous recruitment. This would definitely cause prejudice to the candidates seeking recruitment in the subsequent process as the vacancies would stand reduced. Moreover, it would also extend the life of the wait list though all vacancies stand filled in, which would be impermissible”, it added.

Reiterating that mere placement in the wait list does not create any vested right for being so appointed, the Bench further held, “In these facts therefore, we find that the appellants are justified in contending that the statement dated 15.01.1999 cannot be acted upon as it would result in conferring benefit on a waitlisted candidate to which he otherwise in law is not entitled to. The same is also not shown to be permissible under the Recruitment Rules”

Thus, finding the judgment of the High Court to be unsustainable in law, the Bench allowed the civil appeal.

Cause Title: The Union of India v. Subit Kumar Das (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1235)

Click here to read/download Judgment