Holding

A concession or compromise made by a party before a court cannot be withdrawn on appeal unless fraud or deception is established, and the Tribunal’s interpretation of the recruitment rules to treat the respondents as Initial Constituents is correct.

Summary

The Sports Authority of India (SAI) challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that directed it to treat two physiotherapists as "Initial Constituents" under the 2022 Recruitment Rules, converting them from contractual to regular employees. In the Delhi High Court, SAI’s counsel sought only an extension of time to comply with the Tribunal’s direction, and the High Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly. SAI later filed two recall applications to overturn the High Court’s order, alleging a misunderstanding of the Tribunal’s order, but provided no affidavit disavowing the concession made by its counsel. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot rescind a concession or compromise made before a court unless fraud or deception is shown, and therefore dismissed the recall applications. It affirmed the CAT’s interpretation that the respondents’ appointments were irregular, not illegal, and that they must be considered Initial Constituents, making them regular employees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the Tribunal’s order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a party can recall a court order that was passed based on a concession or compromise made by its counsel without evidence of fraud or deception.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal correctly interpreted the 2022 Recruitment Rules to deem the respondents as ‘Initial Constituents’ of SAI.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing an application for recalling an order passed on a concession made by the Appellant’s counsel? Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has correctly interpreted the recruitment rules while directing the Respondents as ‘Initial Constituents’? Headnotes† Concession made by a party in Court – Recall application against order passed based on such concession rightly rejected – Recall permissible in case of fraud or deception – Impugned judgment upheld –

Subjects

ConcessionCompromiseRecall applicationInitial ConstitutionRecruitment Rules

Judgment

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1547 : 2025 INSC 319

Sports Authority of India & Anr.
v.
Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana
(Civil Appeal No(s). 2289-2291 of 2025)
04 March 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing an application
for recalling an order passed on a concession made by the
Appellant’s counsel?
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has correctly
interpreted the recruitment rules while directing the Appellant to
treat the Respondents as ‘Initial Constituents’?

Headnotes†
Concession made by a party in Court – Recall application
against order passed based on such concession rightly
rejected – Recall permissible in case of fraud or deception –
Impugned judgment upheld – Appeals dismissed:
Held: Sports Authority of India, the Appellant, challenged an order
of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the Respondents to
be considered as ‘Initial Constituent’ under the 2022 Recruitment
Rules before the High Court – During the hearing, counsel for
the Appellant said it would not like to press the petition on merits,
and prayed for time to comply with the Tribunal’s directions – Writ
petition disposed of by High Court as per request – Appellant did not
consider Respondents as ‘initial constituents’ as directed – Instead
filed two recall applications against the High Court’s order – Only
ground taken by Appellant’s counsel was that it had misunderstood
the Tribunal’s order – No affidavit by client to say that counsel was
not authorised or instructed to give a concession – Applications
dismissed by High Court vide impugned judgment – Held, recall
applications rightly rejected – When order has been passed on a
kind of a compromise or concession given by a party, that party
cannot turn back and challenge the order before a higher court,
unless it is a case of fraud or deception. [Paras 9 and 10]

* Author
1548 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appointment of Respondents – Tribunal found the appointment
not to be illegal but only irregular – Therefore, Respondents
entitled to be considered as ‘Initial Constituents’ under 2022
recruitment rules – Held, as they are to be considered as ‘initial
constituent’, they are to be treated as regular employees of
Appellant – Reasoning of Tribunal correct – No merit in appeals:
Held: Tribunal directed the Appellant to consider the Respondents
as ‘initial constituent” under the 2022 Recruitment Rules after
observing that their appointment was not illegal, but only irregular –
There is provision under the recruitment rules to consider them
as ‘Initial Constituents’ – Reasoning of Tribunal correct – Once
an employee is considered as an ‘Initial Constituent’ of Appellant,
no longer to be treated as a contractual employee but as a
regular employee – Concession regarding their status as ‘Initial
Constituents’ already been made by Appellant before the High
Court – No merit in appeals. [Paras 11, 12 and 13]

List of Acts
Sports Authority of India (Sports Sciences and Sports Medicine)
Staff Recruitment Rules, 1992; Sports Authority of India (Service)
Bye Laws and Conditions of Service Regulations 1992.

List of Keywords
Concession; Compromise; Recall application.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 2289-2291
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2024 in WP(C) No.
2920 of 2024 and dated 26.11.2024 in CMAPPL No(s). 45440 and
45441 of 2024 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 2296-2298 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv., Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra,
Sugam Kumar Jha, Sreedass K. P., Aditya P. Khanna, Raghav
tandon, Ms. Awantika Manohar.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1549

Sports Authority of India & Anr. v. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana

Advs. for the Respondent:
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Rani Mishraa, Abhimanue Shrestha,
Ms. Sridevi Panikkar, Pritesh Patni, Nishant Kumar.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. Sports Authority of India (for short ‘SAI’) was created in the year 1984
and was registered as a society under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. The necessity for creating a society is reflected in a
resolution dated 25th January, 1984 of the Department of Sports,
Government of India, wherein the objective of the society was stated
to be ‘promotion of sports and games in India’. SAI is directly under
the administrative and financial control of the Government of India.
2. Rules have been framed for regulating the method of recruitment
to the post of Sports Sciences & Sports Medicine Staff (including
the post of physiotherapist), which are known as Sports Authority
of India (Sports Sciences and Sports Medicine) Staff Recruitment
Rules, 1992 (hereinafter ‘1992 Rules’) and under the Sports Authority
of India (Service) Bye Laws and Conditions of Service Regulations
1992, where employees can also be directly recruited as per provision
81. There is also a provision which is defined as “initial constitution”
under the 1992 Rules which reads as under:
‘4) INITIAL CONSTITUTION:
(a)All the employees in SAI working on ad-hoc basis on
any of the post mentioned in the schedule on the date
these rules come into force shall, after the approval by
a duly constituted Committee, shall be deemed to have
been appointed under these rules with effect from a date
as may be decided by the said Screening Committee in
each individual case.

1 METHOD OF RECRUITMENT: Recruitment to a post under the Society may be made by any one or more
of the following methods: (a) Promotion (b) Direct Recruitment (c) Deputation (d) By re-employment of a
retired employee of the Society or Central/ State Government or any other Organization. (e) On Contract
for a specified period of technical personnel on specific terms as approved by Vice-Chairperson, SAI
1550 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(b) All the employees working on a regular basis on any
of the post contained in the schedule to these rules will
be deemed to have been appointed under these rules
with effect from the date of initial appointment to the post.’
Fresh set of rules were approved in 2022 for regulating recruitment
to the posts of Executive cadre, called the Sports Authority of India
Executive Cadre (Grade A) Staff Recruitment Rules 2022 (hereinafter
‘2022 Rules’), which contain a similar provision regarding “initial
constitution”, which reads as under:
‘4. Initial Constitution: - All the employees in SAI working
on any of the post mentioned In the Annexure-I on the
date these rules come into force shall be deemed to have
been appointed under these rules.’
3. Under the above provision, an employee, who is working on ad hoc
basis on any post mentioned in the 1992 Rules shall be deemed to
be appointed under the said rules, after being duly approved for the
“initial constitution” of SAI. In other words, he/she is not merely a
daily wage or a contractual employee, but an employee of SAI. The
respondent was continuing on contractual basis as a physiotherapist
(grade II) since 20.02.2021.
4. The 2022 Rules were notified and to bring into effect the cadre
restructuring made therein, instead of renewing their contracts, the
department advertised their vacancies which were to be filled by
another set of physiotherapists on contractual basis. The respondents’
name did not figure in the list. All persons earlier appointed on
an ad hoc basis (including the respondents herein) were given
an opportunity to apply against the newly sanctioned posts. The
respondents participated in the selection process and on 09.02.2023,
SAI issued a circular making a public disclosure of non-eligible
candidates for High Performance Analysts on a contractual basis.
This recruitment process was challenged by the respondents before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi,
by filing an Original Application, which was allowed on 04.11.2023,
and the following directions were made:
“28. Notwithstanding the above, the case remains that
the applicants possessed the prescribed qualifications
and they have been selected through a process of open
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1551

Sports Authority of India & Anr. v. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana

competition, therefore, their appointment was not ‘illegal’
but irregular and therefore they should be considered as
part of the initial constitution as laid down in 2022 rules.
Therefore, the right invested in the employees working
on ad hoc basis remained intact. In this regard, we also
placed reliance on S.S. Moghe and Others v Union of
India and others wherein it was held that when a new
service is proposed to be constituted by the Government,
it is fully within the competence of the Government to
decide as a matter of policy the sources from which
the personnel required for manning the service are to
be drawn.
29. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the OA is
allowed with direction to the competent authority amongst
the respondents to consider the applicants as “Initial
Constituent” as per 2022 (4) Rules notified on 03.08.2022
and pass an appropriate reasoned order in this regard
as expeditiously as possible and in any case within
8 weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order and till service
of such order(s), the applicants will not be terminated.
Consequently the termination orders dated 09.02.2023
and 10.02.2023 are quashed. No costs.’
5. This order was challenged by SAI before the Delhi High Court. During
arguments, a statement was made by the counsel appearing for SAI
that they would not like to press the Writ Petition on merits and they
would be satisfied if some more time is given to them to comply with
the directions of the Tribunal for considering the case of respondents
as “initial constituents” as per Section 4 of the 2022 Rules.
6. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 28.02.2024 with the directions
as prayed by SAI before the High Court. Reference to the following
paragraphs of the High Court’s order becomes necessary:
“3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays that instead of pressing the present
petitions on merit, the petitioners would be satisfied if the
time granted by the learned Tribunal for considering the
case of the respondents as ‘Initial Constituents’ as per
2022(4) Staff Recruitment Rules is extended by eight
weeks.
1552 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection
to this limited request.
5. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petitions along with
pending applications stand disposed of by extending the
time granted by the learned Tribunal to the petitioners for
passing orders after considering the case of the respondent
as ‘Initial Constituents’ as per 2022(4) Staff Recruitment
Rules dated 03.08.2022 by eight weeks from today.
6. Needless to state, this court has not expressed any
opinion on merits of the rival claims of the parties.”
7. Their case for “initial constituents” was not considered by SAI, but
instead it filed two recall applications against the above order of the
High Court dated 28.02.2024.
8. On the other hand, respondent filed a contempt petition before
the Tribunal (being Contempt Petition No. 140 of 2024) for wilful
disobedience of order dated 04.11.2023, passed by the Tribunal.
9. The High Court, however, dismissed the recall applications and
the reasons assigned were that it is not denied by the counsel
appearing for SAI that the statement made by the counsel seeking
time to comply with the order of the Tribunal, was made without the
instructions from SAI and neither did SAI file an affidavit stating that
they have not instructed their counsel to make such a statement,
instead the only ground which was taken by the counsel for SAI was
that they had actually misunderstood the order of the Tribunal. This
plea was rejected at the very threshold by the High Court, and in
our view rightly so. The relevant portions of the order in the recall
application are reproduced below:
‘21. In that view of the matter, the explanation tendered by
the learned Counsel in his affidavit dated 10 September
2024 that his statement, as recorded in para 3 of the order
dated 28 February 2024, was based on an erroneous
understanding of the order dated 4 November 2023 of
the Tribunal, cannot be accepted.
22. In our opinion, the only escape from a concession
granted by a Counsel on behalf of his client before the
Court is if the client states, on affidavit, that the Counsel was
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1553

Sports Authority of India & Anr. v. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana

not instructed or authorised to make such a concession.
Even in that circumstance, it would be for the Court to
take a view as to whether to allow the Counsel to resile
from the concession.
23. It is not the case of the SAI that the concession made
by Counsel, as recorded in para 3 of the order dated
28 February 2024 was beyond the instructions granted to
the Counsel or made without authorisation
24. The only ground on which a volte face, from the said
statement, is now being attempted, is that the Counsel
misunderstood the order passed by the Tribunal. Such a
contention, in our view, cannot constitute a basis to recall
the order dated 28 February 2024, especially since, as
we have already noted, the undertaking in para 3 was
in the terms in which the directions had been issued by
the Tribunal in para 29 of its order dated 4 November
2023.
25. It is not the case of SAI, in these applications, that the
order dated 28 February 2024 is erroneous in any way, or
that the Court was under a wrong impression while passing
it. Nor do these applications seek to contend that there was
some fact which could not be brought to the notice of the
Court on 28 February 2024, which SAI now seeks to bring
to the Court’s notice. Nor, even, is it SAI’s case that there
have been any subsequent developments — except the
filing of the contempt petition by the respondents - as would
justify a revisitation of the order dated 28 February 2024.’
The recall applications were thus dismissed, and that order is under
challenge before this Court.
10. This petition ought to be dismissed on the mere ground that once
the order has been passed on a kind of a compromise or concession
given by a party, that party cannot turn back and challenge the order
before a higher court, unless it is a case of fraud or deception. On
principle as well as on law, this is not permissible.
11. Even otherwise, the appellants do not have any case, and the Original
Application of the respondents has been rightly allowed. We totally
agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal.
1554 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12. At this stage, let us also elaborate upon the findings of the Tribunal
with regard to the status of the respondents as “initial constituents”
of SAI.
The Tribunal took note of the provision governing “initial constitution”
in the 1992 Rules as well as 2022 Rules. In that context, it held that
while notifying the 2022 Rules, the 1992 Rules were not superseded
insofar as the definition of “initial constitution” is considered, and as
such, both rules continue to be in operation.
Regarding the status of the present respondents as “initial constituents”,
the Tribunal at the very outset noted that their recruitment was done as
per relevant regulations following due selection process. The Tribunal
then came to the conclusion that the appointments of the respondents
were not ‘illegal’ but only irregular. Therefore, they are entitled to be
considered as part of the “initial constitution” of SAI as laid down in
the 2022 Rules. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed SAI to consider the
case of applicants as “initial constituents” as per the 2022 Rules.
13. For all practical purposes, once an employee is considered as an
“initial constituent” of SAI, it would mean that he is no longer to be
treated as a contractual employee but as a regular employee, who
comes under direct enrolment/control of SAI. The respondents have
served SAI in the past, and as stated above, there is a provision
under the rules under which they can be considered as “initial
constituents” pursuant to which, the Tribunal gave such directions.
The concession regarding their status as “initial constituents” has
already been made by SAI before the High Court.
14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we see no merit in these appeals
and therefore, the appeals stand dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

Headnotes prepared by: Adeeba Mujahid, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)