Orissa High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Tripati Kumar Anjangi And Others ..... ... on 23 April, 2024
Author: B.R.Sarangi
Bench: B.R.Sarangi
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
AFR W.P.(C) NO. 10406 OF 2020
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India.
---------------
Union of India and others ..... Petitioners
-Versus-
Tripati Kumar Anjangi and others ..... Opp. Parties
For petitioners : Mr. D. Gochhayat,
Central Government Counsel
For opp. parties : M/s. Nirmal Ranjan Routray, J. Pradhan, T.K. Choudhury, and S.K. Mohanty, Advocates P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Date of Hearing: 18.04.2024::Date of Judgment: 23.04.2024 DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The Union of India and its functionaries have filed this this writ petition assailing the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A No. 605 of 2012 under Annexure-1, by which direction has been Page 1 of 30 given to the present petitioners to review the result of opposite party no.1 ignoring the condition of the minimum qualifying marks for each subject, which is not mentioned in the notification dated 19.10.2010, and if the opposite party no.1 is otherwise found eligible, to appoint him against a vacant post of Postman, on the promotional quota of the GDS, as would be available at present, with consequential service benefits as per the provisions of law.
2. Brief facts of the case, as borne out from the records, are that opposite party no.l, as the applicant filed the Original Application contending before the Tribunal that he, while working as Grameen Dak Sevak (GDS), Badagumuda Branch Post Office, appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) held on 30.01.2011 by the Postal Department for promotion of Group-D (MTS) & GDS to the cadre of Postman for the vacancies of the years 2009 & 2010. The said LDCE was conducted in accordance with the guidelines stipulated in Letter No. RE/30-22/2009 dated Page 2 of 30 19.10.2010 of the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar. In the said examination, as many as 172 GDS employees and 2 Group-D (MTS) officials appeared, for filling up of the following vacancies pertaining to the year 2009 & 2010:-
Year Outsider Departmental
Merit
UR UR SC
2009 04 9 -
2010 01 2 1
2.1. In accordance with the order contained in letter No. RE/23-2/2005 dated 24.02.2011 of the Regional Office, Berhampur, the result of the candidates in respect of LDCE held at Jeypore (K) Center was declared at Regional Office, Berhampur on 27.02.2011 vide SSPOs, Koraput Division, Jeypore (K) Memo No. B/2/ General - 8/Ch-III dated 27.02.2011. In the said examination, no departmental candidate came out successful, for which 11 UR vacancies and 01 SC vacancy, approved under departmental quota, were transferred to GDS merit quota and the community already declared as unchanged as per the instruction of Chief Postmaster General, Odisha. As such, result of the Page 3 of 30 examination was to be declared among the GDS merit quota for the total vacancy of UR-16 and SC-1. Out of 157 candidates appeared in the examination, 9 GDS belonging to OBC and 1 belonging to SC Category were qualified on merit without any relaxed standard and 4 GDS under UR vacancy were qualified. One GDS candidate under SC category was qualified under relaxed standard. Finally, a total of 15 GDS were declared qualified and two Postman Posts under UR community remained vacant. In later course, the vacant posts had been filled up by absorbing qualified candidates from neighboring division as per Regional Office, Berhampur (Gm) Memo No. RE/23-2/2005 dated 10.03.2011.
2.2. The opposite party no.1 belongs to OBC category and he was allowed to appear in the said examination. On perusal of the tabulation sheet, it was found that he had secured total 98 marks out of the maximum 150 marks in the said examination, i.e., Paper A-44 marks, Paper B- 20 Marks and Paper C-34 marks. The opposite party no.1, for having secured 20 marks in Page 4 of 30 Paper-B as against the qualifying marks 23, was not qualified in the said examination. As such, his claim for promotion to the cadre of Postman was not considered. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 605 of 2012.
2.3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the present petitioners appeared and filed their reply stating inter alia that LDCE for promotion of Group-D (MTS) & GDS to the cadre of Postman for the vacancies of the years 2009 & 2010 was held on 30.01.2011 in accordance with the guidelines stipulated in the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar Letter No. RE/30-22/2009 dated 19.10.2010 and in pursuance of Regional Office Berhampur (Gm) Letter No. RE/23-2/2005 dated 21.10.2010. In the said examination, 172 GDS employees and 2 Group D (MTS) officials were allowed to appear for filling up of the vacancies pertaining to the years 2009 and 2010. The vacancy position, duly approved by the Postmaster General, Berhampur (Gm) Page 5 of 30 was circulated among all concerned vide SSPOs, Koraput Division, Jeypore (K) Letter No. B2/Gen-8/Ch-III dated 24.01.2011. It was further submitted that though opposite party no.1 had secured 98 marks, it was mandatory for a candidate to secure 45% qualifying marks in each paper to be declared successful in the examination. The opposite party no.1, having secured 20 marks in Paper B against the prescribed qualifying marks 23, i.e., 45% of total mark, was not qualified. Consequentially, his name was not included in the list of qualified candidates. As such, no illegality or irregularity was committed by the authorities in not including the name of opposite party no.1 in the list of successful candidates.
2.4. The Tribunal, without considering the same in its proper perspective, passed the impugned order on 01.08.2019 making the following observation at paragraph-8 thereof:-
"8. From the discussions above, it is clear that there is no stipulation of the minimum qualifying mark in each paper in the vacancy notification Page 6 of 30 dated 19.10.2010 and no satisfactory reason has been furnished in the counter for not specifying such important criteria for qualifying the examination in the advertisement for the posts itself. There is no unambiguous rule produced before us through the pleadings, which specifies such minimum mark for each paper as the criteria for qualifying the examination in question. Further, it is not disputed that the respondent No. 4 to 9, who were selected in the test, had secured less aggregated marks than the applicant, who was declared fail'. No rule or circular has been furnished by the respondents in their pleading to support of the contention regarding minimum marks for each subject. In absence of such rules or circular, we are unable to accept the contentions of the respondents in this regard."
2.5. By so observing, the Tribunal directed to review the result of opposite party no.1 ignoring the condition of the minimum qualifying marks for each subject, which is not mentioned in the notification dated 19.10.2010 for the post and, if opposite party no.1 is otherwise eligible, to appoint him against a vacant post of Postman against the promotional quota of the GDS, as would be available at present, with the consequential service benefits as per the provisions of law. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Mr. D. Gochayat, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently Page 7 of 30 contended that Tribunal, having failed to appreciate the conditions stipulated in the Letter No. RE/30-22/2009 dated 19.10.2010 of the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar, has come to such a conclusion, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. As such, the guidelines, for holding of departmental examination for promotion of Group- D/Mailman & GDS to Postman/ Mail-guard cadre for the vacancies of the years 2009 & 2010, stipulate the educational qualification under Clause-4. Sub-clause (1) of Clause-4 specifies that the educational qualification for appearing in departmental examination for promotion to Postman/Mail-guard cadre has been raised to matriculation standard for all EDAs, who are recruited on or after 25.09.1987, as envisaged under Directorate's Letter No. 10-6/86-PCC/SPB-I dated 28.04.1988, but for EDAs (now GDS), who were in service on or before 25.09.1987, would be eligible to appear in the Postman/VPM/MG examination without obtaining matriculation qualification, as required vide Directorate's Letter No. 60-62/92-SPB-I dated 22.12.1993. Therefore, Page 8 of 30 it is specifically urged that the guidelines dated 28.04.1988, which are applicable to opposite party no.1, where the qualifying mark in each paper has been fixed as 45% for other caste candidates and 30% for SC/ST candidates, as per the executive instruction dated 11.05.1989, have not been properly considered and, thereby, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is further contended that by misinterpreting the circular dated 17.11.1988, the Tribunal has come to such a finding, even though in the said circular the qualifying marks, as per the revised syllabus for departmental candidates for induction in the cadre of Postman/Village Postman/Mail guard, has been prescribed as 45%, and qualifying standard in respect of SC/ST for Promotion to the Post of Postman etc. has been prescribed as 30% in each paper. Thereby, the Tribunal has totally failed in appreciating minimum qualifying mark prescribed by the authority, as per the guidelines/ circulars issued, and passed the order impugned, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Page 9 of 30
4. Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1, per contra, justified the order impugned passed by the Tribunal and contended the advertisement does not contemplate any minimum qualifying mark for each subject. The Tribunal is well justified in passing the order impugned, which does not warrant interference of this Court. It is further contended that the circular indicating fixation of minimum qualifying mark, which has been relied upon by the petitioners, was not placed before the Tribunal for consideration. For the first time, the same has been filed by the petitioners in the present case to justify their action. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. It is contended that the petitioners should have confined their argument to the materials available before the lower court, as such the petitioners cannot take advantage of the circular, which they had failed to produce before Tribunal. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in the case of Page 10 of 30 Secretary to the Govt and Another v. M. Senthil Kumar, AIR 2005 SC 1579: 2005 (3) SCC 451; Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India, 2008 (2) SCC 417 and State of West Bengal & Another v. West Bengal Regn. Copy Writers Assn & Anr., 2009 (14) SCC 132.
5. This Court heard Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 in hybrid mode and perused the records. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
6. Based on the factual matrix and rival contentions of the parties, as discussed above, the only question revolves around to be decided in this case is, whether minimum qualifying mark in each subject to be secured by a candidate to qualify the Departmental Examination for Promotion of Group-D/Mailman & GDS Page 11 of 30 to Postman/ Mail-guard cadre for the vacancies of the years 2009 & 2010 was notified or communicated to the candidates?
7. There is no dispute before this Court LDCE for promotion of Group-D (MTS) & GDS to the cadre of Postman for the vacancies for the years 2009 & 2010 was held on 30.01.2011. For holding of such examination, the Department of Posts : India, Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Orissa Circle had issued a Circular bearing No. RE/30-22/2009 dated 19.10.2010. The time schedule of Departmental Examination, as had been indicated in Clasue-1 of the said Circular, is extracted hereunder:-
"1) Time schedule of Department Examination.
(i) Last date fixed for submission of 20-12-2010 the application by the candidate in the prescribed proforma to his immediate controlling authorities concerned.
(ii) Last date fixed receipt of 28-12-2010 applications at the Divisional Office.
(iii) Last date fixed for completion of 05-01.2011 security work of applications received from the candidate
(iv) Last date fixed for issue of Hall 10-01-2021 Permits to the eligible candidates.
(v) Last date fixed for submission of 15-01-2011 Page 12 of 30 information regarding exact number of candidates (both departmental & GDSs) permitted to appear the examination along with proforma report in the prescribed proforma.
(vi) Last date fixed for submission of 20-01-2011 the number and detail particulars of the APS candidates permitted to appear the examination.
(vii) Date of holding the examination. 30-01-2011 Claue-2 of the said circular dated 19.10.2010 deals with method of filling up of the vacancies and Clause-3 deals with the eligibility condition to apply for the examination.
Clause-4 of the said circular, which deals with educational qualification, reads as follows:-
"(i) Educational qualification for appearing departmental examination for promotion to Postman/Mailguard cadre has been raised to matriculation standard for all EDAs who are recruited on or after 25.9.1987 as envisaged under Directorate letter no. 10-6/86-PCC/SPB-I dtd. 28.4.88 but for EDAs (now GDS) who were in service on or before 25.9:1987 would be eligible to appear in the Postman/NPMMG examination without obtaining matriculation qualification as required vide Directorate letter no. 60-62/92-SPB-I dtd. 22.12.1993.
(ii) A minimum educational qualification of 8th Pass has been prescribed for GDS under 25 % seniority quota as instructed vide Directorate letter no. 44-29/94-SPB-1(P) dtd. 19.5.1995."Page 13 of 30
8. On perusal of Sub-clause (i) of Clause-4, it is evident that educational qualification for appearing departmental examination for promotion to Postman/Mail guard cadre has been raised to matriculation standard for all EDAs., who are recruited on or after 25.09.1987 as envisaged under Directorate's Letter No. 10-6/86-PCC/SPB-I dated 28.04.1988. Therefore, the EDAs (now GDS), who are in service on or after 25.09.1987, for them the minimum qualification for promotion would be matriculation. The modalities have been prescribed vide letter dated 28.04.1988. The letter dated 28.04.1988, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, regarding recruitment of the cadre of Postmen/Village Postmen/ Mail Guards and implementation of recommendation of Fourth Central Pay Commission, Revision of syllabus for Departmental Candidates/EDAs, has prescribed as follows:-
Paper Total Qualifying Duration
Marks Marks
A (i) Making entries 50 45% 45 minutes
either in
Postmen's
Page 14 of 30
Register (MS 58)
according to the
choice of a
candidate (for
Postmen)
(ii) Preparation of
mail lists, filing up
of mail abstracts
and writing up
daily reports (for
mail Guard).
The entries
should be made
either in English
or in the
recognized
language of the
State
B Arithmetic of 10th 50 45% 90 minutes
Standard of Board
of Schools
Education.
C Writing from 50 45% 30 minutes
dictation in
English language
of Matriculation
Standard and also
in the regional
language.
9. On perusal of the above guidelines, it is clear that the qualifying mark for each subject has been fixed as 45% as per the circular dated 28.04.1988, which has been referred in the educational qualification prescribed under Clause-4 (1) of the circular dated 19.10.2010. Therefore, it was made known to all the examinees that they have to secure minimum 45% of qualifying mark in Page 15 of 30 each of the subjects. The same has also been fortified in letter dated 17.11.1988 under Annexure-6, where it has been stated as follows:-
"I am directed to invite your kind attention to this office letters of No. 10-6/86-PCC/SPD-I dated 25.09.87 (fixing 45% marks in each paper for qualifying the examination for Direct Recruitment) and 28.4.8 containing revised syllabus for Departmental candidates /for induction to the cadre of Postmen/Village Postmen/ Mail guards fixing 45% marks in each paper for qualifying the examination and to state that a question with regard to qualifying standard in favour of SC/ ST candidates / officials/ EDAs has been under consideration of the Directorate for some time past. It has now been decided that the qualifying standard in respect of SC/ST candidates /Officials /EDAs appearing in the examination for the pot of postmen / village postman and mail guards should be 30% (Thirty percent) in each paper.
10. Similarly, in letter dated 11.05.1989 under Annexure-7, the qualifying mark has also been fixed to be 45% and the contents of the said letter read as under:-
"I am directed to invite your kind attention to this office letter of number even dated 28.4.88, wherein revised syllabus for the examination for departmental officials and EDAs for promotion/ Selection to cadre of Postmen/ Village Postmen/ Mail guards has been circulated and to state that some of the circles have raised doubt about fixation or marks of two parts of paper "C" and its qualifying standard. The matter has been examined in this office and Page 16 of 30 it is seen that there is really no room for confusion regarding the syllabus. It is further clarified that the candidates will have to appear in both parts of paper 'C' and allocation of marks for the two parts may be equal, The qualifying mark for the paper is 45% for O.C candidates marks and 30% for SC/ST candidates will be determined by taking the total marks obtained in both parts."
11. In letter dated 06.12.2006 under Annexure-8, so far as procedure for declaring the result for the Departmental Examination for promotion of Group- D/GDS to Postman/ Mail Guard cadre held on 08.10.2006 for the vacancies of the years 2003, 2004 & 2005 is concerned, it was stated as follows:-
"The qualifying standard for induction /promotion to Postman/ Mailguard cadre (Both for department candidate & GDS) is 45% mark in each paper in respect of OC candidates but for SC/ST candidates it is 30% in each paper for qualifying the departmental examination as envisaged vide the DTE letter No.44-26/98-SPB. I dtd. 17.11.88 & 20.12.88 & also vide Directorate letter No. 10-6/86-PCC/SPB.I dtd.11.05.89. The result the examination be declared accordingly based on the merit of the candidates.
12. In view of the above letters/circulars issued from time to time for departmental examination for different years, it is made clear that the minimum qualifying mark for each subject has been fixed as 45%.Page 17 of 30
As such, opposite party no.1, having not secured the qualifying mark in Paper-B, since he had secured 20 marks as against the qualifying mark of 23, was not declared successful.
13. So far as the judgments of the apex Court in M. Senthil Kumar; Sarabjit Rick Singh and West Bengal Regn. Copy Writers Assn. (supra) are concerned, on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for opposite party no.1, there is no ambiguity on the principles laid down by the apex in the said judgments, but facts and circumstances of said decisions are distinguishable from that of the present one, as because opposite party no.1, in the case at hand, was aware of the fact of minimum qualifying mark for each subject, as in the guidelines issued on 19.10.2010 reference was made to Sub-clause (1) of Clause-4 of the letter dated 28.04.1988 with regard to educational qualification, which envisages the minimum qualifying mark for each subject to be eligible for consideration for promotion. Having this fact made known to opposite Page 18 of 30 party no.1, now, after having become unsuccessful in the process of selection, he cannot turn around and contend that minimum qualifying mark was not intimated to the candidates and, therefore, the same is not applicable to opposite party no.1.
14. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1043, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of the apex Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
15. In Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1995 SC 1088, the apex Court held as follows:-
"........If a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted."Page 19 of 30
16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others, (2011) 1 SCC 150, the apex Court in paragraph-27 ruled as follows:-
"In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 in para 18, it was held that:
"18........... It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same."
17. In Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522, the apex Court observed as follows:-
"The other contention of Mr. Rao that the candidates had given only seven days time for making preparation to appear in the second screening test, cannot, in our considered view, give rise to a ground for setting aside the entire selection process. The Tribunal did not make any discrimination. One screening test had already been held. The number of candidates appeared in the first screening test was 510. The Commission obtained the permission of the Tribunal for holding the second screening test. It issued a notification on 12.12.2000 stating that such a test would be conducted on 7.1.2001. All the candidates were given the same time for preparation. Only because the appellants herein were employees at the relevant time, the same by itself could not confer on them any special privilege to ask for an extended time. They Page 20 of 30 had no legal right in relation thereto. Appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of the said question of fixing of the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process."
18. In Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (Civil Appeal Nos. 2164-2172 of 2023 disposed of on 28.03.2023), the apex Court held that having participated in the selection process without any demur or protest, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the same as being tainted with malafides, merely because they were unsuccessful.
19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v Shakuntala Shukla, AIR 2002 SC 2322, the apex Court held that the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she Page 21 of 30 cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable.
20. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, the apex Court held that it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.
21. In Manish Kumar Shahi v State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 "We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the appellant is not entitled to challenge the criteria process of selection. Surely, if the appellant's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The appellant invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the appellant clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
Page 22 of 30 Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Sevati Patra v. State of Odisha, 2016 (I) ILR CUT 417; Pradeep Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2017 (II) OLR 274; Pravati Nayak v. State of Odisha, 2018 (Supp-II) OLR 946; and also judgment dated 02.04.2019 rendered in W.P.(C) No. 14047 of 2012 (Keshari Sahoo v. State of Odisha).
22. Above apart, since opposite party no.1 was aware of the fact that the circular dated 28.04.1988, where minimum qualifying mark has been prescribed, is applicable, now, at this stage, he is estopped from challenging the same.
23. In Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn. at page 570 'estoppel' has been defined to mean a bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true.
24. The Law Dictionary expresses promissory estoppel to the following effect:-
Page 23 of 30
"A promise by which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promise, and which does induct such action or forebearance. Such a promise is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise."
25. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol.16 in Para-1514 at page 1017, the "promissory estoppel" has been defined to the following effect:-
"Promissory estoppel: When one party has, by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to their previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him, but he must accept their legal relations subject to the qualification which he himself has so introduced."
26. In Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Treas House Ltd., (1956) 1 All ER 256, it has been held that a promise is intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and in fact acted upon is binding.
27. In Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd v.
Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, (1970) 1 SCC 582, it Page 24 of 30 has been held that there is no distinction between a private individual and a public body, so far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned.
28. In Gujurat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels, (1983) 3 SCC 379, it has been held that the principle of "promissory estoppel" would estop a person from backing out of its obligation arising from a solemn promise made by it to the respondent.
29. In Ashok Kumar Maheswari v. State of U.P., 1988 SCC LSS 592, it has been held that doctrine of "promissory estoppel" has been evolved by the Courts on the principle of equity to avoid injustice.
30. In Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322: 2002) 2 SCC 188, it has been held that the Government is equally bound by its promise like a private individual, save where the promise is prohibited by law, or devoid of authority or power of the officer making the promise. The equitable doctrine of Page 25 of 30 promissory estoppel must yield where the equity so requires in the larger public interest.
31. In State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., (2004) 7 SCC 673, it has been held that the "promissory estoppel" operates on equity and public interest.
32. In A.P. Steel Re-rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2007) 2 SCC 725, it has been held that where a beneficent scheme is made by the State, the doctrine of "promissory estoppel" would apply.
33. In State of Orissa v. Manglam Timber Products Ltd., (2003) 9 Scale 578, it has been held that to attract applicability of "promissory estoppel" a contract in writing is not a necessary requirement. This principle is based on premise that no one can take advantage of its own omission or fault.
34. In B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, (2003) 2 SCC 355 (365) it has been held by the apex Court that 'estoppel' is based on the maxim "allegans contrarir non Page 26 of 30 est audiendus" (a party is not to be heard contrary) and is the spicy of presumption "juries et de jure" (absolute, or conclusive or irrebuttable presumption).
35. In H.R. Basavaraj v. Canara Bank, (2010) 12 SCC 458, it has been clarified that in general words, 'estoppel' is a principle applicable when one person induces another or intentionally causes the other person to believe something to be true and to act upon such belief as to change his/her position. In such a case, the former shall be stopped from going back on the word given. The principle of estoppels is only applicable in cases where the other party has changed his positions relying upon the representation thereby made.
36. The principle of promissory estoppels has been considered by the apex Court in Union of India v. M/s Anglo, Afghan Agencies etc., AIR1968 SC 718; Chowgule & Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2021; M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Page 27 of 30 AIR 1979 SC 621; Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1987SC 2414; and Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 and many other subsequent decisions also.
37. In Ambika Prasad Mohanty v. Orissa Engineering College, 1989(1) OLR 440, the Division Bench of this Court has already held that a student admitted after satisfying all qualifications, subsequently his admission is cancelled and he cannot prosecute his studies elsewhere, rule of estoppel is applicable.
38. This Court in Dr. (Smt.) Pranaya Ballari Mohanty v. Utkal University, 2014 (I) OLR 226 has come to a finding that the action taken at belated stage by the University after lapse of 20 years of publication of the result is hit by the principle of estoppel.
39. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Rajanikanta Priyadarshy v. Utkal University, represented through its Registrar, 2015 (I) OLR 212, Page 28 of 30 wherein this Court held that the result of +3 Final Degree (Regular) Examination, 2010 of the petitioner therein having been published and on that basis he has already undergone higher studies and passed in different courses, subsequently his initial result cannot be cancelled on the ground that he has failed in the said examination.
40. Similar principle has been followed by this Court in the case of Bikash Mahalik v State of Odisha, 2021 (III) ILR CTC 720 and M/s. Balasore Alloys Ltd v State of Odisha, 2019 (I) ILR CTC 214, in which one of us (Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi) was a member.
41. In view of the facts and law, as discussed above, this Court unhesitatingly held that the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 605 of 2012 under Annexure-1 cannot be sustained in the eye Page 29 of 30 of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
42. In the result, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
G. SATAPATHY, J. I agree.
(G. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 23rd April, 2024, Arun
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Apr-2024 17:07:50 Page 30 of 30