Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals filed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) challenging a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) concerning the employment status of certain physiotherapists. The Division Bench bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah upheld the Tribunal’s decision, which directed SAI to consider the respondents as part of the “initial constitution” under the Sports Authority of India Executive Cadre (Grade A) Staff Recruitment Rules, 2022.

The Tribunal had earlier quashed termination orders issued by SAI and held that the respondents’ appointments, though irregular, were not illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, concluding that once an employer makes a concession in a judicial proceeding, it cannot later challenge the resultant order unless fraud or deception is established.

The Sports Authority of India was established in 1984 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, to promote sports and games in the country. The recruitment and service conditions of its employees were initially governed by the Sports Authority of India (Sports Sciences and Sports Medicine) Staff Recruitment Rules, 1992. A fresh set of rules, the Sports Authority of India Executive Cadre (Grade A) Staff Recruitment Rules, 2022, was later introduced to regulate recruitment in the executive cadre.

Also Read: Supreme Court on Consumer Protection Act's Applicability: Business Loans Not Covered Under Consumer Rights

The case arose when SAI decided not to renew contracts for certain physiotherapists and instead advertised fresh vacancies to be filled on a contractual basis. The affected employees, including the respondent, Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana, had been serving in an ad hoc capacity as physiotherapists. They participated in the new selection process but were not included in the final list of selected candidates. Consequently, their employment was terminated through orders dated February 9 and February 10, 2023.

Challenging the termination, the affected individuals approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, through an Original Application. They contended that they had been initially recruited through a due selection process and, under the “initial constitution” clause in the 2022 Rules, were entitled to be considered part of the restructured cadre.

The Tribunal allowed the application on November 4, 2023, holding that the respondents’ appointments were not illegal but merely irregular. It observed:

"The case remains that the applicants possessed the prescribed qualifications and they have been selected through a process of open competition; therefore, their appointment was not 'illegal' but irregular and therefore they should be considered as part of the initial constitution as laid down in 2022 rules."

Citing the precedent in S.S. Moghe and Others v. Union of India and Others, the Tribunal reiterated that the government has the discretion to determine the source of recruitment when constituting a new service. Consequently, the Tribunal directed SAI to treat the applicants as “initial constituents” under the 2022 Rules and issue appropriate orders within eight weeks. Until such orders were issued, the termination orders were to remain quashed.

SAI challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Delhi High Court but later withdrew the petition, seeking only an extension of time to comply with the Tribunal’s directions. On February 28, 2024, the High Court extended the time for SAI to consider the respondents' cases by another eight weeks. The High Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims.

Subsequently, instead of complying with the Tribunal’s directions, SAI filed recall applications against the High Court’s order. The respondents, in turn, filed a contempt petition before the Tribunal, alleging willful disobedience of the November 4, 2023, order.

The Supreme Court noted that SAI’s recall applications were dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the undertaking given by SAI’s counsel before the High Court was binding on the institution. The Court observed:

"It is not denied by the counsel appearing for SAI that the statement made by the counsel seeking time to comply with the order of the Tribunal was made without instructions from SAI, and neither did SAI file an affidavit stating that they had not instructed their counsel to make such a statement."

The Court further held that an employer cannot challenge an order passed based on its own concession unless fraud or misrepresentation is demonstrated. Since SAI’s counsel had voluntarily sought an extension of time before the High Court, the Court ruled that the subsequent recall applications lacked merit.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Directs Central Government to Refer HCL Retirement Age Dispute to Tribunal, Citing Procedural Violations and Need for Adjudication

In addition, the Court endorsed the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding the respondents' employment status. It stated that the provision for “initial constitution” under the 1992 and 2022 Rules continued to apply and that the respondents had been selected through a valid process.

The Court remarked:

"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 the direct enrolment and control of SAI."

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal’s direction to consider the respondents as part of the initial constitution under the 2022 Rules.

Case Title: Sports Authority of India & Anr. v. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 319
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 2289-2291 and 2296-2298 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

[Read/Download order]