- Case
- SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DR. KULBIR SINGH RANA (Supreme Court of India, 04-03-2025)
- Law
- Societies Registration Act.
Societies Registration Act, 1860: The judgment mentions that the Sports Authority of India (SAI) was registered as a society under this Act in 1984. The judgment does not provide further details or interpretation of any specific section of this Act.
Sports Authority of India (Sports Sciences and Sports Medicine) Staff Recruitment Rules, 1992: The judgment discusses the "initial constitution" provision under these rules. Specifically, Rule 4 is quoted: "'4) INITIAL CONSTITUTION: (a) All the employees in SAI working on ad-hoc basis on any of the post mentioned in the schedule on the date these rules come into force shall, after the approval by a duly constituted Committee, shall be deemed to have been appointed under these rules with effect from a date as may be decided by the said Screening Committee in each individual case. (b) All the employees working on a regular basis on any of the post contained in the schedule to these rules will be deemed to have been appointed under these rules with effect from the date of initial appointment to the post.'" The judgment notes that under this provision, an employee working on an ad hoc basis on any post mentioned in the 1992 Rules shall be deemed to be appointed under the said rules after approval.
Sports Authority of India (Service) Bye Laws and Conditions of Service Regulations 1992: The judgment mentions these regulations as governing direct recruitment of employees as per provision 8. The judgment does not provide further details or interpretation of any specific section of these regulations.
Sports Authority of India Executive Cadre (Grade A) Staff Recruitment Rules 2022: The judgment discusses the "initial constitution" provision under these rules. Specifically, Rule 4 is quoted: "'4. Initial Constitution: - All the employees in SAI working on any of the post mentioned In the Annexure-I on the date these rules come into force shall be deemed to have been appointed under these rules.'" The judgment refers to a direction by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to consider the applicants as "Initial Constituent” as per 2022 (4) Rules notified on 03.08.2022. The High Court extended the time granted by the Tribunal for considering the case of the respondents as ‘Initial Constituents' as per 2022(4) Staff Recruitment Rules dated 03.08.2022.
General Principles of Law: The judgment touches upon the principle that a party cannot challenge an order before a higher court once the order has been passed on a kind of compromise or concession, unless it is a case of fraud or deception. The judgment states, "This petition ought to be dismissed on the mere ground that once the order has been passed on a kind of a compromise or concession given by a party, that party cannot turn back and challenge the order before a higher court, unless it is a case of fraud or deception. On principle as well as on law, this is not permissible." It also discusses the responsibility of a counsel to act on instructions from their client, and the consequences of a counsel making a statement without instructions.
