No Estoppel Against Statutory Recruitment Rules: Service Rendered in District Judiciary Not Countable for In-House High Court Promotions

Commentary on: Yashwant Mandhotra v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWP No. 4241 of 2023, decided 06-06-2025, Himachal Pradesh High Court (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:17984)

1. Introduction

This judgment addresses a recurring but under-litigated question: whether service rendered in the district judiciary can be tacked on to service in the Registry of a High Court for the purpose of satisfying minimum service requirements in a “limited competitive examination” meant exclusively for in-house candidates. The petitioner, Mr. Yashwant Mandhotra, was denied selection to the post of Translator in the Himachal Pradesh High Court on the ground that he lacked the stipulated five years of service “in the Registry.” He attempted to rely on his earlier stint (approx. 1½ years) in the Civil & Sessions Division, Kullu, arguing that the High Court’s own Grievance Committee had earlier approved his eligibility. The core issues were:

• Whether pre-transfer service in the district judiciary counts towards the five-year service requirement in the High Court Registry.
• Whether an administrative concession (by the Grievance Committee and Acting Chief Justice) creates an estoppel against the High Court from later declaring the candidate ineligible.
• Whether the petitioner acquired any vested or enforceable right by merely participating in the examination.

2. Summary of the Judgment

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma dismissed the writ petition. The Court held:

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers & Staff Rules, 2015 (“2015 Rules”) expressly demand five years’ service “on the Establishment of the High Court,” i.e., in the Registry.
• The petitioner joined the High Court Registry only on 02-06-2018. On the cut-off date (20-09-2022) he had served merely four years—short of the mandated five.
• The office order of transfer explicitly stated that the petitioner would forfeit his earlier seniority and could not claim any future benefit of that service.
• An administrative approval (Grievance Committee + Acting CJ) that permitted him to sit for the test was ultra vires the statutory rules and therefore voidable; no estoppel can arise against statute.
• Reliance on parity with another employee (Saurabh Kumar) failed because even that employee’s benefit was limited to “service benefits except seniority,” and could not override the 2015 Rules.
• Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Municipal Administration v. M.C. Sheela Evanjalin (2020) 19 SCC 317, the Court reiterated that mere possession of qualification—or participation in a selection process—does not create a right to appointment contrary to recruitment rules.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

3.1.1 Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Anr. v. M.C. Sheela Evanjalin & Ors. The Supreme Court clarified that:

• Eligibility must be evaluated strictly under the applicable recruitment rules.
• Qualifications alone do not entitle a candidate to appointment unless she is in the feeder cadre and fulfils all prescribed conditions.

The High Court used this authority to underline that Mr. Mandhotra, though academically qualified, lacked the required cadre status and length of service.

3.1.2 Internal Administrative Orders (e.g., Saurabh Kumar benefit, Office Order dated 02-06-2018). While not precedents in the judicial sense, the Court examined these to demonstrate that administrative concessions cannot dilute statutory mandates.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Supremacy: Rule 8 of the 2015 Rules bars appointment unless a candidate “possesses all the necessary qualifications… and fulfils the requirements indicated in Schedule III & IV.” Schedule III (Part C, Entry 2) sets “five years’ length of service” in the Registry as an eligibility condition. Because the term “Registry” is defined in Rule 2(x)/(xi) as members of staff “on the Establishment of the High Court,” service in the district judiciary cannot be counted.
2. Effect of Transfer Order: The transfer order expressly stated the petitioner “shall forfeit seniority in their respective establishments and shall not lay any claim for seniority in future.” Any interpretation counting the earlier period would contradict this condition and disrupt the seniority chain within the Registry.
3. Principle of Estoppel: Estoppel cannot operate against statute. Even though the Grievance Committee (and Acting CJ) had allowed the petitioner to sit for the exam, that concession—being contrary to the 2015 Rules—creates no legally enforceable right. The Court cited basic administrative-law doctrine: an order ultra vires the parent statute can be withdrawn or ignored.
4. Cut-off Date Sanctity: Eligibility must be tested as on 20-09-2022 (the last date for applications). Subsequent events or retrospective validations cannot cure a basic eligibility defect.
5. Fairness to Other Candidates: Allowing an ineligible candidate would prejudice similarly circumstanced employees who, knowing the rules, did not apply. Articles 14 & 16 demand a level playing field.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has immediate and long-term consequences:

• High Court Administration: Confirms that any administrative relaxation granted by committees or individual judges must remain within the four corners of the recruitment rules. Internal governance must align with statutory prescriptions.
• Feeder-Cadre Employees: Clarifies that only service rendered after formal entry into the High Court Registry counts toward in-house promotional examinations. Transfers from district courts restart the seniority clock for such purposes.
• Judicial Precedent: The decision strengthens the principle that “no estoppel against statute” applies equally to High Court administrative decisions. It is likely to be cited in future challenges where administrative indulgence clashes with statutory mandates.
• Policy Formulation: High Courts and State Governments may revisit transfer-cum-absorption clauses to explicitly state which benefits (leave, pension, pay fixation) migrate with the employee and which do not (seniority, promotional eligibility).
• Litigation Strategy: Aspirants will need to verify cut-off-date eligibility before litigating, as courts will strictly enforce recruitment rules.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Registry / Establishment: The administrative wing of the High Court—distinct from the subordinate judiciary—consisting of clerks, assistants, translators, etc.
• Feeder Cadre: The lower post or category from which promotions or selections are made to a higher post.
• Limited Competitive Examination: An internal exam open only to existing employees meeting certain criteria (here, five years of service in the Registry).
• Estoppel Against Statute: A person cannot rely on another’s statement or even an administrative order if doing so would contravene a statutory provision. In other words, you cannot be “estopped” from asserting what the law mandates.
• Ultra Vires: Latin for “beyond the powers.” Any administrative act that exceeds the authority granted by law is voidable.
• Cut-off Date: The date fixed by the recruiting authority to assess eligibility. Courts treat it as sacrosanct to ensure certainty and fairness.

5. Conclusion

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed a foundational administrative-law truism: statutory rules are paramount and cannot be diluted by internal concessions or past practice. By ruling that service rendered in the district judiciary cannot be aggregated for a High Court Registry post that explicitly requires five years’ in-house service, the Court safeguards both procedural integrity and the legitimate expectations of other employees. Additionally, it signals that estoppel—a doctrine rooted in equity—must yield when in direct conflict with statute. The judgment therefore stands as a robust precedent ensuring that recruitment processes, especially within judicial establishments, remain rule-based, transparent, and immune from ad-hoc relaxations.