Supreme Court: Party Cannot Challenge An Order Passed On Concession Or Compromise Unless Fraud Or Deception Is Involved
The Supreme Court clarified that once an employee was considered under the “initial constituent” of the Recruitment Rules, it would mean that the said person could not be treated as a contractual employee but as a regular one.
The Supreme Court has held that once an order has been passed on a compromise or concession given by a party, that same party cannot challenge the said order before a higher court, unless it is a case of fraud or deception.
The Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) challenging the dismissal of their recall applications by the Delhi High Court. The Court clarified that once an employee was considered as an “initial constituent” under the Sports Authority of India (Sports Sciences and Sports Medicine) Staff Recruitment Rules, 1992 (Rules), it would mean that the said person could not be treated as a contractual employee but as a regular employee, who comes under direct enrolment/control of SAI.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that “For all practical purposes, once an employee is considered as an “initial constituent” of SAI, it would mean that he is no longer to be treated as a contractual employee but as a regular employee, who comes under direct enrolment/control of SAI. The respondents have served SAI in the past, and as stated above, there is a provision under the rules under which they can be considered as “initial constituents” pursuant to which, the Tribunal gave such directions.”
Senior Advocate Rakesh Kumar Khanna appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Kamini Jaiswal represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The case concerned the employment status of physiotherapists and other personnel working under contractual appointments at SAI. The Respondents were engaged on an ad hoc basis under the Rules but were not regularised under the said Rules, which provided for the initial constitution of employees working in SAI. Instead of renewing their contracts, SAI issued fresh advertisements for recruitment, excluding the Respondents from consideration. The Respondents challenged this action before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal).
The Tribunal held that the Respondents had been recruited through an open selection process and their appointments were irregular but not illegal. It directed SAI to consider them as part of the initial constitution under the 2022 Rules. SAI challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, which disposed of the Writ Petition on February 28, 2024, by extending the time for compliance with the Tribunal’s directions. However, instead of complying, SAI filed recall applications, which were dismissed by the High Court. Following this, SAI filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court explained that under the “Initial Constitution” of the Rules, an employee who’s working on an ad hoc basis on any post was deemed to be appointed under the said Rules. In other words, he/she is not merely a daily wage or a contractual employee, but an employee of SAI.
Consequently, the Court held, “This petition ought to be dismissed on the mere ground that once the order has been passed on a kind of a compromise or concession given by a party, that party cannot turn back and challenge the order before a higher court, unless it is a case of fraud or deception. On principle as well as on law, this is not permissible.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Sports Authority Of India & Anr. v. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 319)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Rakesh Kumar Khanna; Advocates Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Sugam Kumar Jha, Sreedass K. P., Aditya P. Khanna and Raghav Tandon; AOR Awantika Manohar
Respondent: Advocates Kamini Jaiswal, Rani Mishra, Sridevi Panikkar and Pritesh Patni; AOR Abhimanue Shrestha
