Supreme Court affirms that counsel's concession binds party and upholds Tribunal's order to treat ad‑hoc staff as 'initial constituents'

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard appeals filed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) challenging orders of the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal relating to the status of ad‑hoc physiotherapists and recall applications made by SAI.

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Tribunal's direction that the employees in question were to be considered part of the "initial constitution" under the 2022 recruitment rules. The Bench noted that an undertaking or concession made by counsel in Court ordinarily bound the client and could not be retracted except in cases of "fraud or deception." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The Court also endorsed the Tribunal's finding that the applicants' appointments were "not 'illegal' but irregular" and that they were entitled to be considered as part of SAI's initial constitution pending consideration under the 2022 Rules.

Background The dispute arose after SAI restructured cadres and notified the Sports Authority of India Executive Cadre (Grade A) Staff Recruitment Rules, 2022. A provision in those rules contemplated an "initial constitution" whereby employees working in specified posts on the date the rules came into force could be deemed appointed under the new rules. The respondent, Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana, and others had been working on an ad‑hoc/contractual basis as physiotherapists and participated in the selection process for newly sanctioned contractual posts. SAI issued circulars declaring certain candidates non‑eligible and issued termination orders dated 9–10 February 2023.

The applicants challenged the recruitment process before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which allowed the Original Application on 4 November 2023. The Tribunal held that the appointments were irregular but not illegal, relied on precedent including S.S. Moghe, and directed SAI to consider the applicants as part of the initial constitution under the 2022 rules; it further quashed the termination orders and directed that the applicants not be terminated until the competent authority passed a reasoned order within eight weeks.

SAI approached the Delhi High Court but, during hearings, its counsel sought an extension of time rather than contesting the merits; the High Court disposed of the writ petitions on 28 February 2024 by extending the Tribunal's timeline by eight weeks and expressly recorded that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits. After the High Court order, SAI filed recall applications, contending misunderstanding of the Tribunal's order, and the recall applications were dismissed. The High Court observed that a counsel's concession could only be set aside if the client filed an affidavit showing lack of instruction and even then the Court would exercise discretion. The respondents also filed a contempt petition before the Tribunal alleging wilful disobedience of its order.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Bench found no merit in SAI's challenge, agreed with the Tribunal's analysis that the 1992 and 2022 rules co‑existed for the purpose of "initial constitution," and affirmed that the employees were rightly regarded as initial constituents. The appeals stood dismissed and pending applications were disposed of. No instance of fraud or deception was found that would justify permitting SAI to resile from counsel's recorded concession.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 2289‑2291 of 2025 with Civil Appeal Nos. 2296‑2298 of 2025 Case Title: Sports Authority of India & Anr. v. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Advocate; Mr. Sugam Kumar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Sreedass K. P., Advocate; Mr. Aditya P. Khanna, Advocate; Mr. Raghav Tandon, Advocate; Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR For the Respondent(s): Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate; Ms. Rani Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Sridevi Panikkar, Advocate; Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR; Mr. Pritesh Patni, Advocate