SC Overrules Division Bench, Orders BHU to Follow Statutory Rules for Class-IV to Class-III Promotions; Ensures Benefits for Eligible Appellants

The SC set aside the Division Bench's judgment and reinstated the Single Judge's decision, directing BHU to conduct fresh promotions from Class-IV to Class-III in accordance with statutory rules. The Court ruled that the Board of Examiners lacked authority to alter eligibility conditions and selection procedures, emphasizing that statutory rules approved by the Executive Council must prevail. The principle of estoppel could not override these rules. The SC ordered that eligible appellants receive consequential benefits, including those retired or deceased, with benefits extended to their legal heirs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the principle of estoppel and acquiescence over statutory service rules.
2. Legitimacy of the selection process for promotion from Class-IV to Class-III employees in Banaras Hindu University (BHU).
3. Authority of the Board of Examiners to alter eligibility conditions and selection procedures.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Principle of Estoppel and Acquiescence Over Statutory Service Rules:
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the principle of estoppel and acquiescence could override statutory service rules. The Division Bench had previously applied the principle of estoppel, reasoning that the appellants, having participated in the selection process without protest, could not challenge it after being unsuccessful. However, the Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel cannot override statutory rules. The Court emphasized that statutory rules approved by the Executive Council must prevail over any principle of estoppel or acquiescence. The judgment stated, "It is settled principle that principle of estoppel cannot override the law."

2. Legitimacy of the Selection Process for Promotion from Class-IV to Class-III Employees in BHU:
The selection process for promotion from Class-IV to Class-III positions at BHU was scrutinized. The original advertisement for promotion specified eligibility criteria, including a typing test and a written test. However, the Board of Examiners introduced an interview and altered the selection criteria, which was not authorized by the statutory rules. The learned Single Judge found that the Board of Examiners' actions were illegal and without jurisdiction, as they changed the "rules of the game" during the selection process. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the Board of Examiners could not alter the established procedure laid down by the Executive Council.

3. Authority of the Board of Examiners to Alter Eligibility Conditions and Selection Procedures:
The Court examined whether the Board of Examiners had the authority to change the eligibility conditions and selection procedures. It was found that the Board acted beyond its jurisdiction by introducing an interview and changing the criteria for promotion. The statutory rules mandated that promotions should be based on seniority and passing a departmental written test, with the typing test being a conditional requirement. The Supreme Court reiterated that only the Executive Council had the authority to amend or modify the eligibility conditions, and the Board of Examiners' actions were unauthorized and invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and restoring the learned Single Judge's decision. The Court directed BHU to conduct fresh selections for promotion in accordance with the statutory rules and existing procedures. The judgment emphasized that statutory rules approved by the Executive Council must be strictly adhered to, and any deviation by the Board of Examiners was illegal and without jurisdiction. The principle of estoppel could not be applied to override statutory service rules. The Court ordered that all eligible appellants be extended consequential benefits, including those who had retired or passed away, with benefits extended to their legal heirs.

---