CENTRAL AIRMEN SELECTION BOARD Vs. SURENDER KUMAR DAS
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on
November 21,2002
CENTRAL AIRMEN SELECTION BOARD
Appellant
VERSUS
SURENDER KUMAR DAS
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KRISHNAN VS. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA [REFERRED TO]SANGEETA SHRIVASTAVA VS. U N SINGH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
GAUTAM DAS VS. GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS ENGINEERS LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2006-11-9] [REFERRED TO]B. MADHAN VS. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-246] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS DIXIT VS. VICE CHANCELLOR, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-491] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
DESH BHAGAT DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2007-10-186] [REFERRED]
MANMEET SHARMA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-11-116] [REFERRED]
WASIMUDDIN VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-413] [REFERRED TO]
Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur VS. Santosh Kumar [LAWS(MPH)-2003-8-107] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA VS. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
AZAMAL AHAMAD VS. BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, FARIDKOT [LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
AZAMAL AHAMAD VS. BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, FARIDKOT [LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. MAMTA KUMARI D/O YOGENDRA SINGH & W/O BIBHAV KUMAR PABHAKAR : BABITA KUMARI W/O SUDHIR KUMAR CHOUDHARY : KRISHNA KUMARI W/O SHRI RAM JEEWAN RAM : RAM JEEWAN RAM S/O YOGENDRA RAM [LAWS(PAT)-2010-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS SHARMA VS. GURU JHAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY, HISAR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
SAMYA CHAUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA KUMAR RAI AND 24 ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-270] [REFERRED TO]
DEVKI NANDAN AND ORS. VS. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-93] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL SHARMA VS. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-126] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL SHARMA VS. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-126] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA OVERSEAS BRANCH CHENNAI VS. H CHAMPALAL JAIN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-596] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER SETHI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2024-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
GUPTA FILLING STATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2018-3-152] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
MATTER OF NEERAJ BAHL VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-164] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH RAGHUVIR RAJPUT AND 4 VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 4 [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-438] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK GURJAR VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2014-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA RANI VS. REGISTRAR, M D U ROHTAK [LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-412] [REFERRED TO]
DIPIN ARORA VS. SHIVAJI COLLEGE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-491] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUL DEV VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJLAL KALYANJIBHATE VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KHAMGAON [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
SADHAVNA HP GAS, PATNA VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD , PATNA AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-143] [REFERRED TO]
SARAVANAN VS. CHIEF ENGINEER/PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-87] [REFERRED TO]
HEERA SINGH BORA AND OTHERS; KM SHRADDHA DOBHAL; ARVIND SINGH RANA; DIGPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER; CHANDRA MOHAN SINGH ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS; STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2016-9-78] [REFERRED]
SUKHMEET KAUR DEOL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2007-10-176] [REFERRED]
CESC LIMITED VS. OMBUDSMAN [LAWS(CAL)-2022-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
YUDHANSHU ANGURAL VS. BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B. P. Singh, J. -
(1.)In this appeal by special leave the appellants herein have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated 12th March, 1992 in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 1969 of 1991, whereby the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, directed the appellants to appoint the petitioner on the post of Airman in the technical trade under the Indian Air Force, and to send him for training. The High Court set aside the decision of the appellants not permitting the respondent to join the aforesaid post after selection, on the ground that he was not eligible for the said post in terms of the advertisement. In doing so, the High Court invoked the principle of promissory estoppel and held that having selected the respondent for appointment, and the respondent having discontinued his studies in the Orissa School of Mining Engineering, the appellants could not be permitted to prevent the respondent from joining the post.
(2.)It is not in dispute that an advertisement was published in the Employment News of 17th 23rd February, 1990 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Airman in the technical trade under the Indian Air Force. The advertisement prescribed that the candidate should be born between 31st March, 1971 and 1st July, 1997, but the upper age limit was relaxable. In two years in case of those who had passed the intermediate examination. It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the respondent is 13th July, 1970. Therefore, he was not eligible for the post as he was over age, but however age relaxation was permissible in the case of the respondent if he had passed the Intermediate examination.
(3.)The petitioner was invited to appear at a written test and thereafter the primary examination etc. He was thereafter medically examined and found suitable for appointment. His name appeared in the All India merit list and a call letter was issued to him to report at the Airman Selection Centre, Bhubneshwar on 11-3-1991. However, when the respondent reported at the aforesaid Centre, he was informed that his selection had been cancelled. The respondent thereafter represented to the authorities concerned but to no avail. He was, therefore, compelled to file the writ petition before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order.
(2.)It is not in dispute that an advertisement was published in the Employment News of 17th 23rd February, 1990 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Airman in the technical trade under the Indian Air Force. The advertisement prescribed that the candidate should be born between 31st March, 1971 and 1st July, 1997, but the upper age limit was relaxable. In two years in case of those who had passed the intermediate examination. It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the respondent is 13th July, 1970. Therefore, he was not eligible for the post as he was over age, but however age relaxation was permissible in the case of the respondent if he had passed the Intermediate examination.
(3.)The petitioner was invited to appear at a written test and thereafter the primary examination etc. He was thereafter medically examined and found suitable for appointment. His name appeared in the All India merit list and a call letter was issued to him to report at the Airman Selection Centre, Bhubneshwar on 11-3-1991. However, when the respondent reported at the aforesaid Centre, he was informed that his selection had been cancelled. The respondent thereafter represented to the authorities concerned but to no avail. He was, therefore, compelled to file the writ petition before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.