The core issue revolves around the employment status of individuals, like the respondent, who were initially hired on an ad-hoc or contractual basis by SAI. The dispute centers on whether these employees should be recognized as “initial constituents” under SAI’s 1992 and 2022 recruitment rules, which would effectively grant them regular employee status. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed SAI’s appeal, upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision that such employees, including the respondent, whose appointments were deemed “irregular” but not “illegal,” are indeed entitled to be considered “initial constituents.” This ruling implies that these employees are to be treated as regular, rather than contractual, staff of SAI.
Sports Authority of India (Sports Sciences and Sports Medicine) Staff Recruitment Rules, 1992, Rule 4, 8 – Sports Authority of India (Service) Bye Laws and of Service Regulations 1992 – Sports Authority of India Executive Cadre (Grade A) Staff Recruitment Rules 2022, Rule 4 – Service Law – Contractual appointment – Initial constitution – Tribunal took note of the provision governing “initial constitution” in the 1992 Rules as well as 2022 Rules and held that while notifying the 2022 Rules, the 1992 Rules were not superseded insofar as the definition of “initial constitution” is considered, and as such, both rules continue to be in operation – Regarding the status of the present respondents as “initial constituents”, the Tribunal at the very outset noted that their recruitment was done as per relevant regulations following due selection process and that the appointments of the respondents were not ‘illegal’ but only irregular – Therefore, they are entitled to be considered as part of the “initial constitution” of SAI as laid down in the 2022 Rules – Ultimately, the Tribunal directed SAI to consider the case of applicants as “initial constituents” as per the 2022 Rules.
Held that for all practical purposes, once an employee is considered as an “initial constituent” of SAI, it would mean that he is no longer to be treated as a contractual employee but as a regular employee, who comes under direct enrolment/control of SAI – The respondents have served SAI in the past and there is a provision under the rules under which they can be considered as “initial constituents” pursuant to which, the Tribunal gave such directions – The concession regarding their status as “initial constituents” has already been made by SAI before the High Court – 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 – Appeal liable to be dismissed.
(Para 10 to 14)
Sports Authority Of India V. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 319: (DoJ 04-03-2025)
