State Estopped From Challenging Order After Unconditional Compliance: Patna High Court Dismisses Appeal

The Patna High Court has held that where the State unconditionally complies with a judicial order (without making such compliance subject to the outcome of a pending appeal) it is estopped from subsequently challenging the same order.A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar challenging the order dated 01.12.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge. The writ petition had been filed by the respondent seeking compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was working as an Assistant Teacher and died in harness on 16.10.2015. The learned Single Judge had directed the authorities to consider the respondent's claim for appointment on Class III or Class IV posts.In appeal, the State contended that under Rule 10 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, compassionate appointment in such cases could only be made to the post of Panchayat Teacher, and not to Class III or Class IV posts. It was further argued that the respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications, including TET, for appointment as a Panchayat Teacher.The respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of the learned Single Judge and contended that the direction was in furtherance of the object of compassionate appointment, namely to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family.At the outset, the High Court noted a crucial development, that pursuant to earlier proceedings, the State had already complied with the Single Judge's order and granted appointment to the respondent.Significantly, the Court observed that such appointment had been made without any reservation that it would be subject to the outcome of the present appeal, despite the State being fully aware that the order had been challenged. Therefore, the Court held:“As such, by unconditionally appointing the respondent without specifying that it would be 'subject to the outcome of the appeal', the appellants have effectively waived their right to challenge the impugned order. This creates an 'estoppel by conduct', as the appellant's full and unreserved compliance is legally inconsistent with the pursuit of present Letters Patent Appeal.”Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court reiterated the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, whereby a party cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously.The Court further held that even on merits, the State's reliance on Rule 10 was misplaced. It clarified that the Rule merely prescribes appointment on Panchayat Teacher posts, but does not expressly or impliedly prohibit appointment on other posts.Emphasising the object of compassionate appointment, the Court noted that the scheme is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee, and must be interpreted in that spirit.Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed the same.Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Manoj Kumar.Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 912 of 2023 (in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1224 of 2017).Appearance: Mr. Prabhakar Jha and Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha appeared for the Appellants. Mr. Manish Kumar appeared for the Respondent.Click Here To Read/Download Order

State Estopped From Challenging Order After Unconditional Compliance: Patna High Court Dismisses Appeal

Rushil Batra

Tags