The Application of Principle of Estoppel in the Process in Recruitment

Vatsal Srivastava | Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab | 16th April

Introduction

The principle of estoppel that precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied from his/her statements or actions of the past, is used widely and relied upon by the Courts across the globe. However, in a recent case regarding a selection process for recruitment, the Supreme Court gave a judgement noting that in presence of glaring illegalities and lack of transparency in the procedure, the principle of estoppel does not apply.

Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.

Facts

The present civil appeal (arising out of SLP(C) No. 35373 of 2013)^[1], was filed against a common judgement by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that affirmed a Single Judge’s order as well, wherein a selection (for the post of PTIs) of the appellants in the current appeal was set aside. The respondents in the case were the candidates who brought their grievances before the High Court in the first place, claiming lack of transparency, ambiguity, unnecessary delay in procedure and bias in the conduct of the Commission. 

The Commission had released a notification inviting applications for 1983 posts of PTIs (Physical Training Instructors) for which an examination was conducted and cancelled on grounds of cheating and leaks. Another examination was scheduled and notified but never conducted post which a notification was released stating that an interview of the shortlisted candidates would be held on the basis of their academic record. However, the shortlisting was not carried out and all eligible candidates were interviewed. It was after one and a half years from the interview that the results were published, which became the primary matter of grievance for the respondents in the suit. 

The candidates (respondents presently) filed a suit in the High Court in a Single Judge’s court, whose order was affirmed in a further appeal in the same court. The court ordered the selections to be set aside. In the Supreme Court, the matter was filed by the appellants claiming that the order of the High Court be set aside since the principle of estoppel applies as the respondents were a part of the selection process and thus cannot object to the procedure after the selections were made.

Issue

The court framed multiple issues amongst which of primary importance was whether the selection procedure could be challenged by the respondents and whether or not the principle of estoppel applied. 

Judgement

The Supreme Court heard learned Counsels representing both sides and took into consideration the following facts:

1. The notification for the posts did not specify interviews to be held as a primary method of selections. As the exams stood cancelled, the interview was supposed to be held only for the candidates shortlisted on the basis of their academic record. However, the shortlisting was waived off later, allegedly to include certain candidates to become eligible for the interview, which upon scrutiny appeared as a prejudiced tactic. 
2. The candidates were aware of only the written examination followed by the interviews of the passed candidates. Later, when the exam was cancelled, the Commission upon its discretion opened the interview to all eligible candidates instead of inviting candidates eight times the number of vacancies. The same was unknown to the candidates till the results of the selections came out. 
3. The Commission’s Chairman single-handedly made the decisions and upon being directed to submit a proof of the entire Commission’s approval, a single piece of paper carrying signatures of all members was submitted at a later stage. 

In view of the aforementioned facts and considerations, the Supreme Court ordered to completely set aside the selections made on the basis of the interview process. It ordered fresh selection process to be initiated and complete within five months. In furtherance, it also ordered that there would be no refund obligations arising on the part of the selected candidates for the post of the PTI.

Analysis

The most important observation of the Court in the case was with regards to the question of estoppel, as raised by the appellants. The Court ordered that in view of the glaring illegalities in the process, absolute lack of transparency and the unnecessary delay, the principle of estoppel does not apply on the respondent candidates in the case. It noted that the respondents were not aware of the procedure carried out (as it was changed underway without information) and thus had right to raise objections after the declaration of the results. 

^[1] Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar, MANU/SCOR/24500/2020.