CENTRAL AIRMEN SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. versus SURENDER KUMAR DAS

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 21-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'.: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 of promissory 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.