SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. V. DR. KULBIR SINGH RANA 2025 INSC 319:

DATE: 04/03/2025

BENCH: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

FACTS:

The case revolves around the employment status of physiotherapists and other personnel appointed on a contractual basis by the Sports Authority of India (SAI). The Respondents had been engaged on an ad hoc basis under the applicable Rules but were not regularized, despite the Rules providing for the initial constitution of employees working within SAI. Instead of renewing their contracts or absorbing them under the framework, SAI chose to issue fresh advertisements for recruitment, effectively excluding the Respondents from consideration for permanent positions.

Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the Respondents challenged SAI’s action before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal ruled in their favor, holding that while their appointments may have been irregular, they were not illegal since they had been recruited through an open selection process. Consequently, the Tribunal directed SAI to consider them as part of the initial constitution of employees under the 2022 Rules.

SAI, dissatisfied with this ruling, challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Delhi High Court. On February 28, 2024, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by extending the timeline for SAI to comply with the Tribunal’s directions. However, rather than adhering to the order, SAI filed recall applications seeking to overturn it. These applications were subsequently dismissed by the High Court.

Following this setback, SAI escalated the matter to the Supreme Court by filing the present appeal, seeking relief from the Tribunal’s and High Court’s directives.

ISSUES:

The main issue in this case is whether the status of ‘initial constituent’ under the SAI gives the position of a contractual employee or a regular employee.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The appeals filed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) are dismissed. The respondents are entitled to be considered as "initial constituents" of SAI as per the 2022 Rules, and SAI is directed to comply with the Tribunal's decision. Any pending applications stand disposed of.

The Tribunal correctly held that the respondents' appointments were irregular but not illegal, as they had been recruited through an open selection process. The 2022 Rules provide for "initial constitution," which applies to employees working on an ad hoc basis at the time the Rules came into force. Since the respondents meet this criterion, they must be deemed part of the "initial constitution," effectively making them regular employees rather than contractual ones. The Tribunal’s order was well-founded in law, and the High Court had also granted SAI additional time for compliance, which SAI failed to utilize properly.

Furthermore, SAI’s attempt to challenge the High Court’s order is impermissible as it was based on a concession given by its own counsel. SAI did not claim that the concession was unauthorized or fraudulent; rather, it merely argued that its counsel had misunderstood the Tribunal's order, a plea rightly rejected by the High Court. The recall applications were an unjustified attempt to reverse a settled decision, and there exists no valid ground for overturning the Tribunal's well-reasoned ruling.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the principle that employees who have been engaged through a proper selection process and meet the eligibility criteria should not be arbitrarily excluded from regularization when a framework for absorption exists. The court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation of the 2022 Rules, which provided for the "initial constitution" of employees working on an ad hoc basis. By recognizing that the respondents' appointments were irregular but not illegal, the court emphasized that procedural lapses in recruitment do not automatically invalidate employment if the process adhered to fairness and merit-based selection. This decision ensures that contractual employees who fulfill the necessary conditions are not unfairly displaced by new recruitments, thereby preventing exploitation and fostering job security within public sector organizations like SAI.

Additionally, the court’s rejection of SAI’s recall applications highlights the binding nature of concessions made in judicial proceedings. SAI's failure to claim fraud or lack of authorization in its counsel’s concession demonstrated an attempt to retract a valid commitment, which the court found unacceptable. This aspect of the ruling upholds judicial discipline and discourages litigants from backtracking on statements made in court to manipulate legal proceedings. The court's firm stance against such tactics serves as a precedent for administrative bodies, ensuring that they adhere to legal obligations and do not misuse procedural mechanisms to delay compliance with lawful directives.