State Cannot Resile From Concession Made Before Court: Supreme Court Upholds Appointment Directions In 2012 Rajasthan Teacher Recruitment

The Bench observed that once the State’s concession formed the basis of judicial directions before the High Court, and was subsequently implemented through governmental decisions, it was barred from reopening the issue, while clarifying that the relief would remain confined to those candidates who had approached the Court.

Importantly, the Court also addressed the issue of inter-se seniority to prevent further rounds of litigation. It directed that seniority be maintained in accordance with the revised merit list and that newly appointed candidates be placed accordingly, including at the bottom where applicable.

Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandu observed, “After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the stand as taken by the State Government in the case of Mukesh Kumar Tailor (supra) and batch (supra), it is clear from the averments referred in the order dated 09.02.2017 that the judgment was based on the concession of the State Government , which has not been either recalled or 18 assailed before any higher forum. On the contrary, the Government has taken a decision on 04.09.2017 to implement the said order. In such circumstances the respondents and the impleaders/interveners, if they are similarly placed, cannot be denied the benefit as allowed by the leaned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by the order impugned”.

K.M. Nataraj, ASG appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocates P.S. Patwalia, D.N. Goburdhun, Ranjit Kumar appeared for the respondents.

In the matter, an advertisement was issued on 24-02-2012 notifying 39544 posts, out of which, 10690 posts were for level I (Class 1 to 5) and 28935 posts for level II (Class 6 to 8). The recruitment was conducted district wise through the Panchayati Raj Department. The examination was held on 02-06-2012 and results were declared on 27-08-2012 and the orders of appointment were issued.

The pertinent controversy began when unsuccessful candidates challenged the recruitment process before the Rajasthan High Court, alleging errors in the model answer keys. In Ramdhan Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10622 of 2014), the High Court directed constitution of an Expert Committee to prepare fresh model answer keys, publish them, invite objections, and prepare a revised merit list.

Although the judgment was not challenged by the State, its implementation led to disruption of the original selection list. Teachers appointed under the first merit list faced termination, prompting further litigation. Therefore, in Manju Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan and batch 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 5883, the High Court protected such appointees from being ousted while directing revision of results.

Subsequently, in Mukesh Kumar Tailor v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4145, the High Court, based on a concession made by the State had directed that candidates who secured higher marks than the last candidate continuing in service be considered for appointment against available vacancies.

Now, before the Supreme Court, the State argued that only candidates above the revised cut-off should be considered and that directions in earlier cases were limited to protecting already appointed candidates. However, the Court noted that the judgment in Mukesh Kumar Tailor was expressly based on a concession made by the State Government. That concession was neither recalled nor challenged before any higher forum. On the contrary, the State passed a resolution in September 2017 deciding to implement the directions.

The Bench held that in such circumstances, the State could not be permitted to resile from its earlier stand. Once the concession had formed the basis of judicial directions and had been acted upon, the State was bound by it.

The Court observed that similarly situated candidates, those falling between the last appointee in the first selection list dated 27-08-2012 and below the cut-off of the revised selection list dated 02-09-2013 could not be denied the benefit extended earlier.

During the proceedings, the respondents placed material indicating availability of vacancies, and thus the Court noted that the existence of vacancies was not in dispute.

Therefore, dismissing the State’s appeals, the Court issued time-bound directions requiring preparation of a fresh list of eligible candidates from among the respondents and intervenors within two months, followed by verification and appointment within a further two months.

It clarified that the appointees would be treated at par with similarly situated candidates but would be entitled to salary only from the date of joining, with notional consequential benefits for other purposes.

Cause Title: The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Namonarayan Sharma & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 179]

Appearances:

Appellants: K.M. Nataraj, ASG, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR

Respondents: P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, AOR Akshit Gupta, Mann Arora, Akriti Sharma, Harsh Jain, Aditya Jain, Yogit Kamat, Siddharth Jain, Arjun Kanadi, Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv., Charu Mathur, AOR Yadav Narender Singh, AOR, Mayank Kumar Singh, Mudit Bansal, Girraj Singh Yadav, Abhijeet Singh, Anirudh Singh, Chitrangda Rastravara, Sakshi Aggarwal, Yuvraj Singh, Pearl Pundir, Karan Singh Bhati, Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Raman Yadav, Vikram Nagpal, Deepsea Chakraborty, Aman Jha, AOR, Ankita Chaudhary, AOR, Balwant Singh Billowira, Ravinder Kumar Singh, Kaninika Majumder, Akshay Singh, Akash Yadav, Anirudh Ray, Arpita Mishra, Shilpa Singh, Abhay Anand Jena, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Keane Sardhina, Narender Kumar Verma, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment