In Brief
A school in Odisha had competing claims to the position of Physical Education Trainer: the appellant appointed by one Managing Committee in 1994 versus Respondent No.5, who claimed appointment in 1993 by another Managing Committee. The Supreme Court held that Respondent No.5's appointment was invalid as the post was not vacant when claimed. More significantly, Respondent No.5's 12-year delay in challenging the appellant's 2005 approval, combined with his inaction despite knowing of the appointment and lack of documented evidence of service in the school, constituted acquiescence operating as estoppel. The Court upheld the appellant's appointment and directed the State to pay Respondent No.5 a lump-sum of ₹3 lakhs in recognition of the prolonged litigation process.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.