DR. ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 14-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
~ 
-( 
DR. ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
JANUARY 14, 1998 
[S. SAGHJR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Administrative Law : 
Promissory Estoppel-Rule-Invoking of-Held: It has to be shown 
that there was a declaration or promise made which induced the party to C 
whom the promise was made to alter its position to its disadvantage. 
Promissory Estoppel-Doctrine-Bar against invoking of-The 
prescribed mode of recruitment to the post of Lecturer in the Pharmacy 
Department of Government Medical College was by direct recruitment only D 
and not by promotion-Promise allegedly made to Demonstrators by State 
Government or Director, Medical Education & Training to promote them to 
posts of lecturers-Validity of -Held: Rule of Promissory Estoppel cannot 
be invoked to enforce a promise made contrary to law-Hence, the said 
''promise" not enforceable against the State or the Director-In the facts and 
circumstances of the case, no case made out for invoking the said doctrine. E 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel-Essence of-Stated-Case law 
reviewed. 
Evidence Act, I973: Section JJ5 
Estoppel and Promissory Estoppel-Rule-Invoking of-Held: Even 
though a case does not fall under S. 115 the rule can be invoked. 
Words and phrases: 
"Promissory Estoppel"-Meaning of 
The appellant was a Demonstrator in the Pharmacy Department of the 
F 
G 
. Government Medical College. The appellant and five of his other colleagues 
filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction to ,the respondent to H 
147 
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 
A fill up at least fifty per cent of the posts of Lecturers in Pharmacy by 
promotion of Demonstrators. It was claimed that the respondents, namely, the 
State Government and the Director, Medical Education and Training, assured 
the appellant and his colleagues that they would be promoted to the posts of 
Lecturer. 
B 
The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that neither there 
were any statutory rules nor were there any executive instructions issued 
by the Government that fifty per cent posts of Lecturers in the Pharmacy 
Department would be filled up by promotion of Demonstrators. The High 
Court further held that none of the respondents had promised that the 
C appellant or any of his colleagues would be promoted as Lecturers. Hence 
this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Government having 
itself assured the appellant and his other colleagues that they would be 
promoted as Lecturers, the Government was bound by its promise and, 
--'--
D therefore, ought to have issued a notification that the posts of Lecturers 
~ 
E 
would be filled up by promotion; and that the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel 
was applicable to this case. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Doctrine of"Promissory Estoppef' has been evolved 
by the courts, on the principles of equity to avoid injustice. 1153-B] 
1.2. The definition of "Estopel" and Promissory Estoppel in Black's 
Law Dictionary which are based on decided cases, indicate that before the 
p rule of "promissory Estoppel" can be invoked, it has to be shown that there 
was a declaration or promise made which induced the party to whom the 
J.... • 
G 
promise was made to alter its position to its position to its disadvantage. 
(153 8-E] 
Black's Law Dictionary, referred to. 
2. Even though the case would not fall within the terms of Section 115 
of the Evidence Act, 1872 which enacts the Rule of Estoppel, it would still 
be open to a party who had acted on a representation made by the Government 
to claim that the Government should be bound to carry out the promise made 
H by it even though the promise was not recorded in the form of a formal 
DR. A.K. MAHESHWARI v. STATE 
149 
contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution.1154-F-G] 
Union of India v. Inda-Afghan Agencies, AIR (1968) SC 718, Century 
Spinning Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council. AIR (1971) SC 1021 and 
Radhakrishna v. State of Bihar, AIR (1977) SC 1496, relied.on. 
A 
3. In order .to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel it is not B 
----;... 
necessary for the promisee to show that he suffered detriment as a result 
... _,.,; 
of acting in reliance on the promise. The detriment in ~uch a case is not 
some prejudice suffered by the promisee by acting on the promise, but t!Je 
prejudice, which would be caused to the.promisee, if the promisor were 
allowed to go b!lck on the promise. 115

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