If Litigant Is Granted Relief Following Relied-Upon Judgment, He Can’t Subsequently Plead That His Case Is Distinguishable From Said Judgment: Rajasthan High Court
The writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court was filed against the order whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade was cancelled.
Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the cancellation of the appointment of a candidate to the post of Compounder and held that if a litigant is granted some relief in pursuance of a relied-upon judgment, he cannot subsequently turn back and plead that his case is distinguishable from the said judgment.
The writ petition before the High Court was filed against the order whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade was cancelled.
The Single Bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed, “As is the settled position of law if a litigant claims to be governed by some other judgment or ratio laid down in some other judgment and he is even granted some relief in pursuance to the said relied upon judgment, he cannot subsequently turn back and plead that his case is distinguishable from the said judgment.”
Advocate Y.P. Khileree represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Tananjay Parmar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner, having work experience as a Compounder/Nurse with Dr Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur (respondent) participated in the recruitment process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2013. As per the seventh condition of the said advertisement, bonus marks were to be granted to the candidates having work experience, in terms of the conditions as specified therein. When the petitioner was not granted the bonus marks, he preferred a writ petition, which was dismissed. A Special Appeal was filed, and the Division Bench disposed of the Special Appeal while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the Single Judge.
Before the Division Bench, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2016) was not considered by the Single Judge. In pursuance of the said liberty, a review petition was filed by the petitioner, which came to be allowed. After the judgment in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) was passed by the Division Bench, the respondent authorities observed that the petitioner was not entitled to bonus marks, and if the bonus marks as awarded to him had not been awarded, he would not have been entitled to the appointment. The appointment granted to the petitioner was, hence, cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra), the Bench found that the Court in unequivocal terms held that the classification as made by the State Government could not be termed to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Therein, the Court, while upholding the decision of grant of bonus marks to a limited number of candidates having work experience with the specified institutions/forums/agencies, was held to be good, and the Court declined to interfere with the same.
The Bench mentioned, “In view of the above settled position of law, this Court is of the clear opinion that the petitioner having been granted the relief by virtue of his review petition been allowed in light of the Division bench judgment in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra), would definitely be governed by the same ratio after judgment dated 26.02.2016 in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) been set aside.”
Coming to the ground of the petitioner being entitled in view of the amendment in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1966 vide notification dated June 12, 2021, the Bench noted that the process in question was initiated vide advertisement dated June 7, 2013, and the said recruitment process stood complete before the 2021 notification having come into effect. “Even the petitioner was afforded appointment in the year 2018. By any means, notification dated 12.06.2021 cannot have a retrospective effect and it cannot be concluded that amendment in Rule 19 vide notification dated 12.06.2021 would apply to the recruitment process of year 2013”, it held.
It was further noted that the amendment in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1966 vide notification dated June 12, 2021 fortified the fact that candidates having work experience with Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University were not entitled to bonus marks before the said notification having come into effect. Finding no ground to interfere with the order impugned, the Bench dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Shaitan Ram v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:40058)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Y.P. Khileree
Respondent: Advocate Tananjay Parmar, Dy. G.C. Deepak Boda