Once a Concession is Made Before Court, It Cannot Be Resiled From: Supreme Court Rejects SAI's Appeal

Employees Deemed ‘Initial Constituents’ of SAI, Not Mere Contractual Appointees - In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI), upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal’s direction to recognize certain employees as “initial constituents” of SAI under the 2022 Staff Recruitment Rules. The Court strongly criticized SAI’s attempt to withdraw a concession it had already made before the Delhi High Court, stating:

“Once an 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.”

The case revolved around Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana, a physiotherapist (Grade II) who had been serving SAI on a contractual basis since February 20, 2021. When the 2022 Rules were notified, instead of renewing the contracts of existing employees, SAI advertised fresh vacancies, requiring even the existing personnel to reapply. The affected employees challenged this recruitment policy before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, which ruled in their favor on November 4, 2023.

The Tribunal held that since these employees had already been recruited through a competitive process and met all required qualifications, their appointment was not illegal but merely irregular. Therefore, they were entitled to be recognized as ‘initial constituents’ of SAI under the 2022 Rules. The Tribunal quashed their termination orders and directed SAI to issue fresh orders confirming their status within eight weeks.

SAI challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Delhi High Court, but during arguments, its counsel made a concession—agreeing to comply with the Tribunal’s directions and only seeking an extension of time for implementation. On February 28, 2024, the High Court disposed of the petition, extending SAI’s compliance deadline but making no changes to the Tribunal’s ruling.

However, instead of implementing the order, SAI filed a recall application, arguing that its counsel had misunderstood the Tribunal’s order when making the concession before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the recall plea, observing that SAI had never claimed that its counsel acted without instructions or authorization. The Court stated:

“The only escape from a concession granted by counsel is if the client states on affidavit that the counsel was not instructed or authorized to make such a concession. Even in that circumstance, it is for the Court to decide whether to allow withdrawal of the concession.”

Since SAI failed to produce any such affidavit, the recall application was summarily rejected.

Dismissing SAI’s appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning, emphasizing that a party cannot withdraw a concession made before the Court unless it involves fraud or deception. The Court further reinforced the Tribunal’s view that: “An employee considered as an ‘initial constituent’ of SAI is no longer a contractual employee but is deemed to be under direct employment and control of SAI.”

Reiterating the established principle that government agencies must act fairly in employment matters, the Court held that: “The Tribunal rightly directed SAI to consider the applicants as ‘initial constituents.’ Their past services cannot be disregarded under the garb of fresh recruitment.”

With this verdict, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that once a government entity makes a binding commitment before a court, it cannot later backtrack. The ruling protects contractual employees from arbitrary termination and strengthens their right to regularization when rules permit.

Date of Decision : March 4, 2025