In a recent decision, the Rajasthan High Court held that if a person obtained appointment based on a precedent (earlier judgment) and that precedent is subsequently quashed, then that person cannot later claim a right to continue the appointment or benefit by distinguishing his case from the quashed judgment. The Court emphasised that once a litigant relies upon a judicial ratio (precedent) and secures relief under it, they are bound by the fate of that precedent. If the precedent is set aside, the relief granted under it also falls away.
The case involved the petitioner who was appointed to the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade in an Ayurveda Department. In the recruitment process, candidates with prescribed work experience were given bonus marks. The petitioner initially did not receive those bonus marks and had his writ petition dismissed. On appeal, the petitioner was permitted to file a review petition on the basis that an earlier judgment — Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. vs. State (Ayurved Department) & Ors. — was not considered by the Single Judge. On review, applying the ratio of Yadvendra Shandilya, the petitioner was granted the bonus marks and thereby secured appointment.
Subsequently, the State challenged Yadvendra Shandilya in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside Yadvendra Shandilya, remanding aspects of it back to the High Court. Thereafter, the Division Bench dismissed the petitioner’s claim in a judgment dated 12 December 2023 on the ground that since Yadvendra Shandilya had been quashed, any appointment or benefit derived from it could not survive.
The petitioner attempted to argue that Yadvendra Shandilya had been challenged only on certain grounds, and that some other part of its ratio — on which his claim was based — remained valid. However, the High Court rejected this distinction. The Court stated the settled legal position is that if relief was granted based on a judgment that is later overruled or quashed, the person claiming similarity and relying on that judgment “must swim or sink together” with the precedent; one cannot accept the relief under the precedent and later deny its full effect or status.
Based on this, the High Court dismissed the petitioner’s petition. The Court held that, since Yadvendra Shandilya has been set aside, the petitioner no longer had entitlement to bonus marks or the appointment which had been granted pursuant to Yadvendra Shandilya.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.