Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.51 seconds)
A.F.R. Ram Sankar Mohanty vs Union Of India & Others ... Opposite ... on 6 September, 2024 cites

Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta vs Patel Narandas Haribhai on 11 December, 1981

The law relating to estoppel is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court as well this Court. It would be apposite to refer to the decision of W.P.(C) No. 9539 of 2014 Page 8 of 16 the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta v. Patel Narandas Haribhai;1, wherein the principles for application of the law of estoppel was stated in the following wards;
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 38 - R B Misra - Full Document

Miss Reeta vs Berhampur University And Anr. on 17 July, 1992

12. Another important principle for application of estoppel discussed above is that the person concerned must have altered his position to his prejudice because of the act committed by the authorities. In the instant case, the Petitioner heavily relies upon the offer of engagement issued in his favour to submit that having once issued the same, the authorities are bound by it. This argument can also be considered only to be rejected. What was issued by the authorities was only an offer of appointment and not an order of appointment as such, as would be evident from a bare reading of letter dated 17.1.2014, copy enclosed as Annexure-5). It is well settled that an offer can be withdrawn by the offerer at any time before it is accepted. In the instant case an offer was made on W.P.(C) No. 9539 of 2014 Page 13 of 16 17.1.2014 and the Petitioner was granted time till 24.3.2014 to join. However, before the offer crystallized into a full-fledged order of appointment, the same was withdrawn/cancelled by letter dtd.22.4.2014. Even otherwise, this Court having found that the Petitioner had no legal right to claim appointment as a P.H. candidate for the purpose of Junior Technician, withdrawal of the offer of appointment issued to him inadvertently cannot bind the authorities for all times to come as was held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Miss Reeta v. Berhampur University and another (supra). The mistake was rectified shortly after it was committed. To amplify, the offer of appointment was mistakenly issued on 17.1.2014 and subsequently on scrutiny the mistake having come to light, was rectified by withdrawing the offer on 22.4.2014. This Court finds nothing wrong committed by the authorities. It goes without saying that there can be no estoppel against law. It therefore follows that even a wrong appointment without proper verification cannot confer any right on the appointee and that an W.P.(C) No. 9539 of 2014 Page 14 of 16 error or mistake cannot be overlooked by applying the principle of estoppel. What then to speak a mere offer of appointment!
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1