CENTRAL AIRMEN SELECTION BOARD AND ANR.versusSURENDER KUMAR DAS

         '.:ENTRAL AIRMEN SELECTION BOARD AND ANR.                             A
                              v.
                     SURENDER KUMAR DAS

                         NOVEMBER 21, 2002

              [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.]
                                                                               B


      Service Law-Selection-Age relaxation-Grant of-Subsequent ;mding
that criteria seeking age relaxation not fulfilled and authority making the
selection was misled by fake statement of the candidate-Hence, selection       C
cancelled-On challenge High Court applying promissory estoppel directing
appointment-On appeal, held, invoking principle of promissory estoppel not
permissible in the facts of the case.

      Administrative law-Principle ofpromissory estoppel-Applicability of-
Held, it is based on equitable principles-A person having misled the authority D
by nzaking a wrong statement cannot invoke this principle.

      In the advertisement for the post of Airman in technical trade in
Indian Air Force, the upper age limit prescribed therein was relaxable by
2 years in case of candidate who had passed the Intermediate examination.      E
Respondent-candidate submitted his application for the post, claiming age
relaxation on the basis that he had passed Intermediate examination.
Respondent qualified the written test. At the time of reporting at selection
Centre he was informed that his selection had been cancelled.

      Respondent filed writ petition before High Court challenging the F
cancellation of selection. Appellant in its counter affidavit stated that
selection of respondent-candidate was made giving him age relaxation as
the Board was misled by the particulars furnished in the application of
the candidate that he had passed Intermediate examination, whereas, in
final checking it was found that he had failed in Chemistry examination G
and therefore, he was not justified in claiming that he had passed
Intermediate examination. High Court applying the principle of
promissory estoppel and on finding that candidate had not made any
misrepresentation, held that authorities having selected the candidate and
having called upon him to report at Selection Centre, could not cancel the
                                   295                                         H
    296                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   selection on the ground that he was over aged and directed the appellants
    to appoint the petitioner. Hence the present appeal.

            Allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: 1. Principle of promissory estoppel is based on equitable
B   principles. A person who has himself misled the authority by making a
    wrong statement, cannot invoke this principle, if his misrepresentation
    misled the authority into taking a decision which on discovery of the
    misrepresentation is sought to be cancelled. (299-B-Cf

C         2. High Court has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not
    made any misrepresentation in his application to the effect that he had
    passed the Intermediate examination: This finding of the High Court is
    erroneous, contrary to record and therefore must be set aside. The mark-
    sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed
    in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that
D   he had passed the Higher Secondary + 2 examination, was factually
    incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. The respondent could not be
    permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel, and the High
    Court clearly erred in law in invoking the said principle in the facts of
    this case. The judgment and order of the High Court therefore cannot be
E   sustained. [299-C-F]

          Sri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR (1976)
    SC 376 and Ms. Sangeeta Srivastava v. Prof UN. Singh, AIR (1980) Delhi
    27, referred to.

F           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION              Civil Appeal No. 25 I of
    1994.

         From the Judgment and Order dated I 2 .03. I 992 of the Orissa High
    Court in W.P. No. I 969 of I 991.

G           R.C. Verma and Ms. Sushma Suri, for the Appellant.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            B. P. SINGH, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellants herein
H have impugned the judgment and order of the High Comt of Orissa at Cuttack
      CENTRAL AIRMEN SELECTION BOARD,. SURENDER KUMAR [SINGH. J]             297

dated 12th March, 1992 in Original Jurisdiction Case No.1969 of 1991,               A
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 CoUl1 set aside the decision of the appellants not permitting the
respondent to join the aforesaid post after selection, on the ground that he        B
was not eligible for the said post in tenns of the advertisement. In doing so,
the High Cow1 invoked the principle of promissory estoppel and held that
having selected the respondent for appoint1nent, 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.                                                                               C
       It is not in ~ispute that an advertisement was published in the
Employment News of I 7th-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 D
candidate should be born between 31st March, 1971 and !st July, 1997, but
the upper age limit was relaxable by 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. E

      T~e petitioner \\'as invited to appear at a written test and thereafter the
pri1nary 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,           F
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.
                                                                                    G
      The High Court applying the principle of promissory estoppel and relying
upon the decision of this Court in Sri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra, AIR (1976) SC 376 and Ms. Sangeeta Srivastava v. Prof U.N.
Singh, AIR (1980) Delhi 27, held that the authorities having selected the
respondent and having called upon him to report at the Selection Centre, they       H
    298                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   could not be permitted to cancel the selection on the ground that he was over
    age. In coming to this conclusion the Court observed that the respondent was
    not guilty of having misrepresented any fact. Moreover, the petitioner gave
    up his studies which he was pursuing in the Orissa School of Mining
    Engineering, and thereby acted to his detriment. On these facts, the High
B   Court found that the principle of promissory estoppel could be invoked against
    the appellants. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

           Unfortunately, the High Court has neither noticed nor fully considered
    the factual averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants.
    It has only noticed the fact that the selection had been cancelled on the
C   ground that on the date of application the petitioner was over age. It observed
    that since the date of birth was correctly disclosed in the application, i.t was
    known to the authorities that the respondent did not fulfill the eligibility
    condition regarding age. As per the advertisement the upper age limit was
    telaxable by two years inter alia, in case of candidates who had passed the
D   Intermediate examination. The petitioner had not made any statement in his
    application that he had passed Intermediate examination.

          We have perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants
    before the High Court, and we have also perused the application submitted
    by the respondent for his appointment which has been produced before us as
E   'Annexure A' to the special leave petition filed in this Court. In the counter
    affidavit filed before the High Court, it was stated by the appellants that they
    were misled by the particulars furnished in the application submitted by the
    respondent. Though the petitioner was not eligible for selection, since he was
    over age, his case was considered for enrolment because he had stated in his
F   application that he possessed the +2 qualification, i.e. he had Higher Secondary
    qualification which made him eligible for appointment after grant of relaxation
    in the matter of age. However, when the final checking was done it was
    found that the petitioner had failed in the subject chemistry in his +2
    examination and, therefore, he was not justified in claiming that he had
G   passed +2 examination which entitled him to claim relaxation in the matter
    of age. This aspect of the matter has unfortunately escaped the notice of the
    High Court. From the application submitted by the petitioner, it appears that
    under the column "name of examination passed'', it is stated "HSC" and
    "CHSE +2". The HSC examination was conducted by the Board of Secondary
    Education, Orissa and CHSE +2 by the Council of Higher Secondary
H   Education, Orissa. The mark sheets were also attached therewith. The
          CENTRAL AIRMEN SELECTION BOARD' SUREN DER KUMAR [SINGH. J ]           299

    appellants found that though the respondent claimed to have passed the CHSE         A
    +2 exa111ination. \vhich could have enabled the authorities to grant relaxation
    of age in his case on account of Higher qualification. the relevant 1nark sheet
    annexed to the application disclosed that he had in fact failed in the CHSE
    +2 exan1ination, since he was not awarded the 1nini1num passing marks in the
    subject Chemistry. Even before the High Court, the respondent did not claim B
    to have passed either the Intermediate examination or a Higher Secondary +2
    examination which was considered to be equivalent.

          The question, therefore, is whether in a case of this nature the principle
    of promissory estoppel should be invoked. It is well known that the principle
    of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles. A person who has           C
    himself misled the authority by making a fake statement, cannot invoke this
    principle, if his misrepresentation misled the authority into taking a decision
    \Vhich on discovery of the misrepresentation is sought to be cancelled. The
    High Court has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not made any
    misrepresentation in his application to the effect that he had passed the
    Intermediate examination. As we have found above, this finding of the High          D
,   Court is erroneous, contrary to record and therefore must be set aside. In his
    application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the Secondary
    examination as well as the Higher Secondary +2 examination, and it is clear
    from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidature
    was considered on the basis that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2              E
    examination, as in that case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter
    of age. However, the mark sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the
    respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the
    application, that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, was
    factually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. In these circumstances we
    are satisfied that the respondent could not be permitted to invoke the principle    F
    of promissory estoppel, and the High Court has clearly erred in law in invoking
    the said principle in the facts of this case. The judgement and order of the
    High Court therefore cannot be sustained.

          Counsel for the appellants submitted that even in the absence of any G
    misrepresentation, in a case of this nature where a candidate not eligible for
    appointment is selected by mistake contrary to the terms of the advertisement
    and the rules, when such mistake is detected the authorities are bound to
    correct the mistake and recall the order of selection. The principle of
    pro1nissory estoppel cannot be invoked in such cases. He sought to distinguish
    the decisions relied upon by the High Court. In view of the finding we have         H
    300                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.k.

A   recorded earlier in this judgment, it is not necessary for us to express any
    opinion on this question, and may be, in an appropriate case the aforesaid
    question may merit consideration.

          In the result this appeal 1s allowed. The impugned judgement and order
    of the High court is set aside, and writ petition filed by the respondent
B   dismissed.

    K.K.T.                                                     Appeal allowed.