UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus N MURUGESAN ETC.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 253 · Decided: 07-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
253
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
N MURUGESAN ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2491-2492 of 2021)
OCTOBER 07, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Service Law – CPRI (Pay, Recruitment and Promotion) Rules,
1989 (Working Rule No.1) – Direct recruitment – Tenure appointment
– Non-extension of – Respondent no.1 was an ex-employee of
appellant-Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) – Appointed as
Director General thereof through Direct Recruitment for an initial
tenure of five years or until further orders, being eligible for re-
appointment for a further term up to the date of superannuation –
Sought extension of service towards the end of tenure – Not extended
– Fresh recruitment, private respondent was selected as the new
Director-General – Writ petitions filed by respondent inter alia
questioning his relieving order and challenging the recruitment of
the private respondent – Dismissed by Single Judge on ground of
delay and laches – Appeals, allowed by Division Bench – Held:
Appointment order very explicitly says that extension is subject to
suitability, and such suitability for re-appointment having been
considered, this Court is not expected to substitute its view –
Employer had discretion and in the absence of any arbitrariness,
one cannot question its wisdom – Rules do not prohibit a tenure
appointment – Direct recruitment can also be made for filing up the
post on a tenure basis – Division Bench misconstrued direct
recruitment to mean an appointment to a permanent post –
Respondent not entitled to extension – Further, on the principle
governing delay, laches, and acquiescence, followed by approbation
and reprobation, the respondent ought not to have been granted
any relief – Impugned order set aside – Constitution of India –
Article 226 – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.3, 7, 8, 39 – Acquiescence –
Delay/Laches – Approbation and Reprobation – Doctrine of Election
– Doctrine of Fairness – Karnataka Societies Act, 1960.
Delay/Laches and Acquiescence – Principles governing –
Discussed.
253
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 253
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of Fairness – Employer and
employee relationship – Applicability of – Held: In an employer
and employee relationship, the doctrine of fairness has to be applied
with more vigour when it involves an instrumentality of the State.
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Nature of relief –
Extraordinary and discretionary – Discussed.
Service Law – Direct recruitment – Definition of – Held: Direct
recruitment would mean recruitment through a process stipulated
under the rules – Therefore, it cannot be interpret that all direct
recruitments are to be made by regular employment – Direct
recruitment can also be made for filing up the post on a tenure
basis.
Words & Phrases – ‘Laches’; ‘acquiescence’; ‘approbation
and reprobation’ – Meaning of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals filed by the appellants and dismissing
that of the respondent’s, the Court
HELD: 1. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872:
Section 3 of the Act concerns itself with an act of
communication, acceptance, and revocation of proposal. When
an offer is made, it is required to be accepted by the receiver to
partake the character of a concluded contract. Hence, the
knowledge of the terms of the offer is a primary and essential
factor for acceptance. To understand this better, when an
acceptance is made in an unqualified manner, it takes in its sweep
the said acceptance along with the knowledge of the terms of the
offer. This is for the reason that an unaccepted offer creates
neither any right nor obligation. Such an acceptance as existing
under Section 7 of the Act must both be absolute and unqualified.
As per Section 8, the performance of the conditions of a proposal
or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise
which may be offered with a proposal is an acceptance of the
proposal. Hence, an absolute and unqualified acceptance would
give birth to the contract along with the terms of the offer. Section
39 deals with the effect of the refusal of the party to perform a
promise wholly. Though the Court is not concerned with this
provision, this provision is the only one that speaks of the concept
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
255
of acquiescence, which could be signified by words or conduct,
being an exception for terminating the contract. Under this
provision, a promisee may put an end to the contract unless there
exists an element of acquiescence that could be

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