# Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 1078
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-24
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 349 of 2022
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-imtiyaz-ahmad-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48095
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226-challenge to-notice of
rejection to candidature-petitioners had
been appeared in the screening examThereafter they informed about rejection
of candidature for interview due to lesser
marks in the category-on the basis of
concession given by learned counsel for
the Commission, the court held that in the
event
of
rejection
of
candidature,
petitioners are entitled to file an appeal
and during the pendency of appeal the
petitioners can be permitted to appear in
the interview-the judgments rendered on
the basis of the concession given by the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
Commission of the candidates having a
remedy of appeal in terms of Rules 2011
would
not
be
of
any
help
to
the
petitioners-It is settled proposition of law
that a concession against law or wrong
concession of law would not be bindingThere can be no estoppel against a statute
or regulations having a statutory effectGenerally admissions of fact by counsel
are binding, neither the client nor the
court is bound by admissions as to
matters of law or legal conclusions.(Para 1
to 26)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which public bodies have to act fairly and
reasonably. A fair and reasonable process
of selection to posts subject to the norm of
equality of opportunity under Article 16(1)
is a constitutional requirement. A fair and
reasonable
process
is
a
fundamental
requirement of Article 14 as well. Where
the recruitment to public employment
stands vitiated as a consequence of
systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire
process becomes illegitimate. On the other
hand, where it is possible to segregate
persons who have indulged in mal-practices
and to penalise them for their wrong-
doing, it would be unfair to impose the
burden of their wrong-doing on those who
are free from taint. To treat the innocent
and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting
the former to the consequence of the
cancellation of the entire process would be
contrary to Article 14 because unequals
would then be treated equally. The
requirement that a public body must act in
fair and reasonable terms animates the
entire process of selection. The decisions of
the recruiting body are hence subject to
judicial control subject to the settled
principle that the recruiting authority must
have a measure of discretion to take
decisions in accordance with law which are
best suited to preserve the sanctity of the
process. Now it is in the backdrop of these
principles, that it becomes appropriate to
advert to the precedents of this Court which
hold the field. "

46. For the reasons and deliberations,
aforesaid, this bunch of writ petitions fail
and are dismissed. No order is passed as to
costs.
----------
(2022)01ILR A1078
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-A No. 349 of 2022

Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ram Raj, Hanumant Lal Srivastava, Risabh Raj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashok Shukla

A. Service Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226-challenge to-notice of
rejection to candidature-petitioners had
been appeared in the screening examThereafter they informed about rejection
of candidature for interview due to lesser
marks in the category-on the basis of
concession given by learned counsel for
the Commission, the court held that in the
event
of
rejection
of
candidature,
petitioners are entitled to file an appeal
and during the pendency of appeal the
petitioners can be permitted to appear in
the interview-the judgments rendered on
the basis of the concession given by the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
Commission of the candidates having a
remedy of appeal in terms of Rules 2011
would
not
be
of
any
help
to
the
petitioners-It is settled proposition of law
that a concession against law or wrong
concession of law would not be bindingThere can be no estoppel against a statute
or regulations having a statutory effectGenerally admissions of fact by counsel
are binding, neither the client nor the
court is bound by admissions as to
matters of law or legal conclusions.(Para 1
to 26)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Dr. Atiya Khan Vs St. of U.P & anr. W.P. No.
8548 of 2019
1 All. Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1079
2. Dr. Mohd. Khursheed Alam Vs St. of U.P. &
anr. W.P. No. 29326 of 2021

3. The Employees' St. Ins. Corpn. Vs U.O.I. &
ors. Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2022

4. Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society Vs
Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373

5. Dir. of Elementary Edu.,Odisha Vs Pramod
Kumar Sahoo (2019) 10 SCC 674

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed praying for the following main
relief(s):

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite party no. 2/Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission to permit the
petitioners to appear in the interview for
the post of Medical Officer, S-11/07 in
Government Unani Medical Colleges of
U.P. (General Recruitment), which is
slated for 24.01.2022 and 25.01.2022.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus restraining the
opposite
parties
from
detaining/debarring the petitioners from
appearing in the interview for the post of
Medical Officer, S-11/07 in Government
Unani Medical Colleges of U.P. (General
recruitment), scheduled for 24.01.2022
and 25.01.2022, without following the
provisions
contained
in
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission
(Procedure and Conduct of Business)
Rules, 2011."

3. The case set forth by the
petitioners is that an advertisement had
been issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission (hereinafter referred
to as Commission) inviting applications for
various posts including the post of Medical
Officer in Government Unani Medical
Colleges of the State. A copy of the
advertisement is annexure 3 to the petition.
The selection required a two stage process
namely a written examination for the
purpose of screening followed by an
interview of the eligible candidates. The
petitioners appeared in the screening
examination and claim to have qualified the
same. Thereafter the commission issued a
notice dated 12.10.2021, a copy of which is
annexure 7 to the petition whereby the
candidates who had qualified in the
screening examination were to be called for
interview. It was specifically provided in
the said notice that the candidates shall be
called for an interview on the basis of the
marks
obtained
in
the
screening
examination.

4. The petitioners were sanguine in
the belief that they would be called for
interview which was scheduled to he held
on 24.01.2022 and 25.01.2022 but the
Commission
issued
a
notice
dated
17.01.2022, a copy of which is annexure 2
to the petition whereby the petitioners
alongwith several other candidates were
informed that the marks obtained by them
in the screening examination were less than
the cut off marks in their category. It is
contended that as the roll numbers of the
petitioners figure in the said notice dated
17.01.2022 whereby it has been contended
that the cut off marks are less in their
category as such they would not be called
for interview scheduled on 24.01.2022 and
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25.01.2022 and hence the petitioners are
before this Court.

5. Reliance has been placed on the
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
(Procedure and Conduct of Business)
Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred as Rules
2011) a copy of which is annexure 1 to the
petition, more particularly on Rule 31 of
the Rules 2011 to contend that the
petitioners should have been informed
individually about the rejection of the
application for being called in the said
interview. This has not been done by the
Commission. It is contended that against
the order rejecting the applications of the
petitioners the petitioners have remedy of
filing an appeal before the date of the
interview and the commission should allow
the petitioners to appear in the interview
during the pendency of the appeal.

6. Reliance in this regard has been
placed on two judgments of this Court
passed in Writ Petition no. 8548 (Service
Single) of 2019 in re: Dr. Atiya Khan vs
State of U.P. and another decided on
03.04.2019 and Writ Petition no. 29326
(Service Single) of 2021 in re: Dr. Mohd.
Khursheed Alam vs State of U.P. and
another decided on 14.12.2021, copies of
which
are
cumulatively
annexed
as
annexure 13 to the petition to contend that
Rule 31 of Rules 2011 has been interpreted
by this Court and it has been held on the
basis of concession given by the learned
counsel for the Commission that in the
event of rejection of their candidature, the
petitioners are entitled to file an appeal and
during pendnecy
of
the
appeal
the
petitioners can be permitted to appear in the
interview.

7. Placing reliance on Rules 2011
learned counsel for the petitioners argues
that once the Rules 2011 are categoric and
the candidature of the petitioners has been
rejected by the Commission vide order
dated 17.01.2022 as such keeping in view
the Rules 2011 the petitioners are entitled
to file an appeal against the said rejection
order and as the time is short, this Court
may permit the petitioners to appear
provisionally in the interview scheduled to
be held on 24.01.2022 and 25.01.2022.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents argues that it
is not the case of candidature of the
petitioners having been rejected rather it is
a case where the petitioners have failed to
make the cut off on the basis of marks in
their category and as such a conscious
decision has been taken by the Commission
vide order dated 17.01.2022 of not calling
the petitioners and other candidates who
have failed to make the cut off marks, for
interview. Thus, it is argued that once the
petitioners have failed to make the cut off
as such there would not be any occasion for
calling them for interview.

9. As regards non-communication of
the
rejection
of
candidature
to
the
petitioners individually it is argued that the
Rules 2011 itself provide that the rejection
order can be uploaded on the website of the
commission and in fact the notice dated
17.01.2022 has been uploaded on the
website of the Commission and as such
there was no requirement of giving
individual
notice
to
the
candidates
including the petitioners.

10. As regards the judgments of this
Court in the case of Dr. Atiya (Supra) and
Dr. Khursheed Alam (Supra), learned
counsel for the Commission argues that a
wrong concession of law has been given by
the learned counsel for the Commission of
1 All. Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1081
the candidates having an alternative remedy
of appeal in as much as it is where the
application of a candidate is rejected that he
is entitled to file an appeal against the said
rejection but in the instant case as the
petitioners have failed to qualify and make
the cut off marks in the screening
examination as such the remedy of appeal
would not be available to them.

11. It is also argued that the
petitioners have failed to challenge the
notice dated 17.01.2022 whereby they have
not been found eligible for being called in
the interview and hence the petition
deserves to be dismissed.

12. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

13. From perusal of record it is
apparent that the petitioners had appeared
in the screening examination in pursuance
of
the
advertisement
issued
by
the
Commission for the post of Medical
Officer. Admittedly the examination was in
two parts namely screening examination
and thereafter the qualified candidates were
to appear in the interview.

14. The Commission issued a notice
on 17.01.2022 whereby the petitioners
alongwith several others were notified that
the marks obtained by them in the
screening examination are less than the cut
off for the purpose of being called in the
interview. The argument of learned counsel
for the petitioners that the petitioners have
not been informed individually about
rejection of their applications merits
outright rejection in as much as even if for
the sake of arguments it is accepted that an
individual notice of rejection of candidature
was to be given the same would suffice
once the said information is given on
the Commissions' website as per Rule
31(iv) of the Rules 2011. Admittedly, the
notice dated 17.01.2022 is available on the
Commissions' website and thus there was
no requirement of any individual notice to
the petitioners.

15. The question which arises is that
once the petitioners have not been found
eligible for being called for the interview
on the basis of having obtained lesser
marks than the cut off in the screening
examination then whether they are entitled
to be called for the interview after filing of
an appeal in terms of Rule 31 of the Rules
2011?

16. As reliance has been placed on
Rules 2011, more particularly, Rule 31, for
the sake of convenience the same is
reproduced below:

"31. (i) No candidate shall be admitted
to the examination unless he has duly
applied on the prescribed form in the
prescribed manner and has deposited the
prescribed
application/examination
fee
within the prescribed time,

(ii)
No
application
received
or
submitted
after
last
date
fixed
for
receipt/submission of applications shall be
accepted;

Provided that in case more than one
mode have been provided the application
sent by registered post/speed post shall be
at the risk of candidate and shall not be
accepted after the last date of receipt
mentioned in the advertisement;

Provided that except in case of on-line
form submission if the aforesaid last date is
a non-working day, applications received
on the next working day shall be deemed to
be within time;
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided further that if a doubt arises
as to whether the application was received
within time, the decision of the Committee
constituted for the purpose shall be
conclusive and final.

Provided further that Application form
partially wrongly filled shall not be
allowed to be corrected after it has been
received by the Commission. It shall also
be applicable to online applications.

(iii) An application not accompanied
by
proof
of
having
deposited
the
application/examination fees or not giving
full details regarding the optional papers
offered shall be liable to rejection.

(iv) A rejection memo shall be sent to
the candidates stating the reasons for
rejection either through mail or through
Commission's website;

Provided
that
an
information
regarding rejection of an application, as
shown on the web-site of the commission
with regard to any examinations including
preliminary examination or Screening test
of such examination, shall be deemed to be
a rejection - memo for the purposes of this
rule and publication thereof on the website
shall be deemed as if the rejection-memo
has been properly served upon the
applicant concerned.

(v) The candidate may file appeal
against the memo of rejection imperatively
before the date of examination or interview,
as the case may be, and the same would be
decided expeditiously by the committee of
members constituted for the purpose.
Subject to the final decision in the appeal,
the Commission may allow the candidate to
appear at the examination or the interview,
as the case may be, provisionally during
the pendency of the appeal."

17. A bare perusal of the said rule
would indicate that the same pertains to the
application
of
a
candidate
to
an
examination for which he has applied. The
said rules provides that no candidate shall
be admitted to an examination unless he
has applied on the prescribed format in the
prescribed manner and has deposited the
prescribed
application/examination
fees
and that no application received after the
last date fixed for receipt shall be accepted.
The Commission has been given the power
to remove doubts as to whether the
application has been received within time
or not. In these circumstances, in case an
application form is rejected, a rejection
memo is to be sent to the candidate stating
the reasons for rejection either through mail
or uploaded on Commissions' website. A
candidate has been given the power to file
an appeal against the memo of rejection
and, subject to final decision of the appeal,
the Commission has been given power to
allow the candidate to appear in the
examination or interview, as the case may
be.

18. The controversy or doubt arises
with the words used in Rule 31(v) of the
Rules 2011 namely:

"(v) The candidate may file appeal
against the memo of rejection imperatively
before the date of examination or interview,
as the case may be, and the same would be
decided expeditiously by the committee of
members constituted for the purpose.
Subject to the final decision in the appeal,
the Commission may allow the candidate
to appear at the examination or the
interview, as the case may be, provisionally
during the pendency of the appeal."

19. At first blush, when Rule 31(v) is
read in isolation and as per the arguments
of learned counsel for the parties, it comes
out that if a candidate is not being
permitted to appear in an interview despite
1 All. Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1083
his candidature having been rejected then,
upon filing of appeal the commission may
permit the candidate to appear in the
interview.

20. However, Rule 31(v) of the Rules
2011 has to be read in entirety alongwith
Rule 29, 30, 32 & 33 of the Rules 2011,
which for the sake of convenience, are
reproduced below:

"29 (i) The Commission shall conduct
examinations for the various posts to be
filled by competitive examinations;

(ii)
The
Commission
may
hold
combined competitive examination for
selection to various posts under its
purview.

(iii) In cases of direct selection
through interview only, if the proportion of
candidates to the number of posts is high,
the
Commission
may,
after
having
considered feasibility, expediency and
other aspects to hold examinations, decide
to hold preliminary examination/ screening
test of the candidates.

30 (i) The Commission shall advertise
the vacancies through the Print media, or
electronic media or both and invite
applications
from
eligible
candidates.
Manner of inviting applications forms
includes ''on-line' submission of application
forms through internet as prescribed by the
Commission in it's website.

(ii) Applications received in response
to advertisement shall be scrutinised by the
office in the manner prescribed by the
Commission on it's website.

32 (1) All eligible candidates shall,
subject to the provisions of the above rules,
be admitted to the examination.

(2) A candidate at any stage of
examination/selection which shall include
final
selection
and
sending
recommendation thereof or during the
course of examination or any selection
process conducted or being conducted may
be debarred from an examination or future
examinations or his candidature may be
cancelled, w.e.f. the date as decided by the
Commission, if he or she-

(i) produces a false or forged
document, the discovery of which may
disqualify him or her from appearing at
any examination or interview;

(ii) conceals any material fact or
information, or flouts any instruction,
guidelines, terms and conditions given
through advertisement, instructions or
communicated in any manner;

(iii) uses any unfair means at the time
of examination or interview, or during the
selection process;

(iv) misbehaves with any functionary
at the time of examination centre or the
Commission;

(v) has ever been rusticated, convicted
for any offence, dismissed from any service
under the Government, or has concealed
deliberately any such information the
disclosure of which would otherwise render
him/her disqualified for the post which
he/she had applied for;

(vi) has been debarred earlier on the
above mentioned grounds or on the
grounds of moral turpitude by the Union
Public Service Commission or any state
public service commission including this
Commissions also;

Provided that action of debarring and
cancellation of candidature shall not be
done unless the candidate is served upon
with a show cause notice and is provided
an opportunity of being heard by the
committee constituted for the purpose;

Provided further that the order of
debarring or cancellation of candidature
shall be passed only after the committee of
the members constituted for the purpose
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has considered the matter and approved
the proposed punishment of debarring the
candidate
or
cancellation
of
his
candidature.

(3) An appeal against the order passed
under sub-rule 2 of rule 32 shall lie to the
Commission.

33 (i) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in relevant service rules
of
Government
Orders
regarding
recruitment, the Commission may hold
preliminary examination/screening test for
finding
out
suitable
candidates
for
admission
to
main
examination
or
interview, as the case may be;

(ii) Preliminary examination shall
mean screening test to be conducted by the
Commission with the purpose of finding out
suitable candidates in required proportion
as fixed by the Commission in each
category, reserved or unreserved, for
admission to the main examination or
interview, as the case may be;

(iii) Preliminary examination shall be
conducted in the manner prescribed by the
Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment through
Public Service Commission Preliminary
Examination Rule, 1986 as amended from
time to time. The marks obtained by the
candidates
in
the
preliminary
examination/screening test shall not be
counted for determining final order of
merit.

(iv) The Commission shall fix the
place, dates and time of examination which
includes
preliminary
examination/screening
test
and
main
examination, as the case may be.

(v) The centers of examination shall be
fixed
with
prior
approval
of
the
Chairman/Examination Committee.

(vi)
All
arrangements
for
such
examinations shall be made by the
Controller of Examination in consultation
with the Secretary and in accordance with
such directions as may be issued by the
Commission in that behalf."

21. Rule 29 of the Rules 2011
categorically provides that a competitive
examination for selection to fill various
posts under the purview of the Commission
can be through examination or through
interview only. Rule 30 further provides
that the Commission shall advertise a
vacancy and invite applications. Rule 31
pertains to the matter in which the
applications are to be scrutinized. Rule 32
provides that all eligible candidates shall,
subject to the provisions of the rules, be
admitted to the examinations. Rule 33
provides that the Commission may hold
preliminary examination/screening test for
finding out suitable candidates and that the
preliminary
examinations
shall
mean
screening test to be conducted by the
Commission. Thus once the examination
by the Commission can be by way of
written examination for the purpose of
screening or by way of an interview only as
such Rule 31(v) which provides that upon
rejection of the application a candidate can
file an appeal and the Commission may
permit the candidate to appear in the
examination or the interview as the case
may be would have to be read as rejection
of an application of a candidate prior to
appearing in the written examination or
interview and not after the candidate has
failed to qualify in the examination either
by way of not obtaining the cut off marks
or having miserably failed to even obtain
the bare minimum marks. Any other
interpretation of Rule 31(v) would render
chaos in as much as all candidates who fail
in written examination would be filing
appeals before the Commission and staking
their claim for appearing in the interview.
This would also be amply clear from the
perusal of the Rule 32 which specifically
1 All. Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1085
provides that all eligible candidates subject
to provisions of the rules to be admitted to
the examination meaning thereby that the
said rule pertains to giving a way to the
rejected candidates to file an appeal which
would imply and mean a ''candidate' prior
to appearing in the screening examination/
preliminary examination or interview and
not subsequent to having appeared in such
examination/interview. This also stands
clarified
in
Rule
33
whereby
the
preliminary examination has been indicated
to be the screening test. Thus, the
interpretation which the petitioners are
trying to place over Rule 31(v) of the Rules
2011 is an interpretation which does not
come out from a complete perusal of the
Rules and thus merits outright rejection.

22. Admittedly the petitioners having
failed to make the cut off marks in the
screening examination as per the notice
dated 17.01.2022 would not be entitled to
appear
in the
interview which
the
commission has correctly proceeded to
restrain them alongwith others.

23. As regards the judgments of this
Court in the case of Dr. Atiya and Dr.
Khursheed Alam (Supra) suffice it to say
that both the judgments were rendered on
the basis of the concession given by the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
Commission of the candidates having a
remedy of appeal in terms of the Rules
2011. Thus, both the judgments would not
be of any help to the petitioners.

24. It is settled proposition of law that
a concession against law or wrong
concession of law would not be binding.

25. In this regard, the Court may refer
to a recent judgment of Hon'ble the Apex
Court dated 20.01.2022 passed in Civil
Appeal No. 152 of 2022 in re: The
Employees' State Insurance Corporation
vs Union of India & others. For the sake
of convenience relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid judgment is reproduced are
under:

"23.
The
contesting
Respondents
submitted that the Appellant is estopped
from urging that the DACP Scheme is not
applicable to the Teaching Cadre at the
ESIC since they have taken this stance
before the CAT and in its writ petition
before the High Court. While this Court
expresses its disapproval at the lack of
proper instructions being tendered to the
Counsel of the Appellant, there can be no
estoppel against a statute or regulations
having a statutory effect. In Nedunuri
Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao
AIR 1963 SC 884 a three-judge Bench of
this Court decided a central point of the
dispute in favour of a party, irrespective of
the concession of its Counsel since it was
on a point of law. Justice M. Hidayatullah
(as the learned Chief Justice then was),
speaking on behalf of the Court observed:

20. From the above analysis of
the documents, it is quite clear that the
documents on the side of the Appellant
established that this was a Karnikam
service inam, and the action of the
Zamindar in resuming it as such, which
again has a presumption of correctness
attaching to it, clearly established the
Appellant's case. Much cannot be made of
a concession by counsel that this was a
Dharmilainam, in the trial court, because
it was a concession on a point of law, and
it was withdrawn. Indeed, the central
point in the dispute was this, and the
concession appears to us to be due to some
mistake or possibly ignorance not binding
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the client. We are thus of opinion that
the decision of the two courts below which
had concurrently held this to be jeroyti
land after resumption of the Karnikam
service
inam,
was
correct
in
the
circumstances of the case, and the High
Court was not justified in reversing it.
(emphasis supplied)

24. In Himalayan Coop. Group
Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015) 7
SCC 373 a three-judge Bench of this Court
clarified the law of agency with respect to
client-lawyer relationships. The Court held
that while generally admissions of fact by
counsel are binding, neither the client nor
the court is bound by admissions as to
matters of law or legal conclusions:

32. Generally, admissions of fact made
by a counsel are binding upon their principals
as long as they are unequivocal; where,
however, doubt exists as to a purported
admission, the court should be wary to accept
such admissions until and unless the counsel
or the advocate is authorised by his principal
to make such admissions. Furthermore, a
client is not bound by a statement or
admission which he or his lawyer was not
authorised to make. A lawyer generally has no
implied or apparent authority to make an
admission or statement which would directly
surrender or conclude the substantial legal
rights of the client unless such an admission
or statement is clearly a proper step in
accomplishing the purpose for which the
lawyer was employed. We hasten to add
neither the client nor the court is bound by the
lawyer's statements or admissions as to
matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus,
according to generally accepted notions of
professional responsibility, lawyers should
follow the client's instructions rather than
substitute their judgment for that of the client.
We may add that in some cases, lawyers can
make decisions without consulting the client.
While in others, the decision is reserved for the
client. It is often said that the lawyer can make
decisions as to tactics without consulting the
client, while the client has a right to make
decisions that can affect his rights. (emphasis
supplied)

25. Recently, a two-judge Bench of this
Court in Director of Elementary Education,
Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo (2019) 10
SCC 674 observed that a concession on a
question of law concerning service Rules
would not bind the State:

11. The concession given by the learned
State Counsel before the Tribunal was a
concession in law and contrary to the statutory
rules. Such concession is not binding on the
State for the reason that there cannot be any
estoppel against law. The Rules provide for a
specific grade of pay, therefore, the concession
given by the learned State Counsel before the
Tribunal is not binding on the Appellant.

The concession of the Counsel for the
Appellant before the CAT does not preclude the
finding on the law that is arrived at by this
Court.

(Emphasis by the Court)"

26. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion no case for interference is made out.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A1086
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 15542 of 2021

Revan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: