Court sets aside order directing government to provide employment, holds counsel's concession not binding. Writ Petition to proceed.

The Court allowed the Review Petition, setting aside the previous order that directed the Government to provide appropriate employment to the Respondent. The Court held that a concession made by Counsel on a question of law, not in accordance with legal requirements, is not binding. The Writ Petition will now be heard on its merits by the regular Court.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of the effect of a concession granted by Counsel on behalf of a party to Court which is not in accordance with law.

Summary:
1. The Respondent, a grandson of a Freedom Fighter, was nominated for Government service by his grandmother. However, his application was rejected after his grandmother's demise.
2. The Respondent challenged the rejection through a Writ Petition, and the Court directed the Government to provide appropriate employment to him based on his grandmother's nomination.
3. The Petitioner sought a review of the order, arguing that the appointment requisites were not fulfilled, such as informing the Employment Exchange and following government circulars.
4. The Petitioner contended that the concession made by Counsel on law does not bind the Petitioner, citing legal precedents like Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan & Anr.
5. The Court held that a wrong concession by Counsel on a question of law is not binding, as seen in cases like Central Council For Research in Ayurveda & Siddha and Anr. Vs. Dr. K. Santhakumari.
6. The Review Petition was allowed, setting aside the previous order, and the Writ Petition will now be heard on its merits by the regular Court.

---