The Court emphasized that once a concession was made by a party’s counsel and recorded by the court, the party could not later challenge the order based on misunderstanding or lack of instruction unless fraud or deception was proven. The provision for initial constitution under the 2022 Rules was interpreted in light of both the 1992 and 2022 Rules, ensuring the respondent’s rights were protected.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal and High Court’s orders. It held that the respondent’s appointment was not illegal but merely irregular and directed SAI to treat the respondent as part of the initial constitution.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Sports Authority of India (SAI) Executive Cadre (Grade A) Staff Recruitment Rules, 2022 — Section 4 — Initial Constitution

2. Sports Authority of India (Service) Bye-Laws and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1992

3. Societies Registration Act, 1860

Subjects:

Initial Constitution — Ad Hoc Employment — Regularization — Contractual Appointments — Recruitment Rules — Tribunal’s Directions — Recall Application

Nature of the Litigation: The case involved a challenge by Sports Authority of India (SAI) against the Central Administrative Tribunal’s direction to consider certain contractual employees, including the respondent, as part of the initial constitution under the Sports Authority of India Executive Cadre (Grade A) Staff Recruitment Rules, 2022.

Relief Sought: SAI sought to recall the High Court’s order upholding the Tribunal’s decision and to prevent the regularization of the respondent’s employment.

Reason for Filing the Case: SAI challenged the Tribunal’s and High Court’s orders on the grounds that the respondent was only a contractual employee and not entitled to regularization.

Previous Decisions:

1. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi — Original Application allowed on 4th November, 2023

2. Delhi High Court — Writ Petition disposed of on 28th February, 2024

Issues:

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to be considered as part of the initial constitution under the 2022 Rules

2. Whether SAI’s recall application was maintainable given the prior concession made before the High Court

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) SAI contended that the respondent’s appointment was on a contractual basis and did not confer regular employee status. (b) Respondent argued that the appointment process was regular and consistent with the rules, making their exclusion from the initial constitution arbitrary and illegal.