Rajasthan High Court Criticizes Parties Re-Opening Concluded Judgments
Rajasthan Excessive Courtroom has reiterated that the hallmark of judicial pronouncements is its stability and finality and thus, they shouldn’t be unsettled calmly.
“Judicial verdicts are usually not like sand dunes that are topic to the vagaries of wind and climate,” Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked whereas coping with a plea towards cancellation of Petitioner’s appointment on the publish of Bodily Coaching Teacher.
Petitioner had appeared within the qualifying examination on September 19, 2022 wherein she failed one paper that was submitted for re-evaluation. The consequence for re-evaluation was declared on November 23, 2022 wherein she handed. Nevertheless, the appointment which was provided to her was cancelled on the bottom that she didn’t possess requisite qualification on the date of written examination for the publish i.e. September 25, 2022.
The petitioner contended that the results of the re-evaluation within the qualifying examination should be deemed to be her unique consequence, being relevant from the date of the examination i.e. September 19, 2022, and since she had certified that earlier than the date of the examination for the publish (September 25, 2022), she was eligible for appointment.
After listening to the contentions, the Courtroom referred to the Supreme Courtroom case of Jenany J.R.v S. Rajeevan & Ors. wherein it was held that the revised marks after re-evaluation wouldn’t be reverted again to the unique consequence whereby the candidate was declared as fail.
The Courtroom took discover of many instances relied upon by the petitioner wherein reverse ruling had been given to the impact that if in re-evaluation consequence, any candidate was declared as go, it will relate again to the date of declaration of the particular consequence.
In relation to those references, the Courtroom highlighted that in none of those judgments, the ruling of the Supreme Courtroom within the case of Jenany J.R. was introduced into the discover of the co-ordinate benches, and therefore, these have been handed in ignorance of the Apex Courtroom determination.
“…solely view that holds the sphere is that the re-evaluation consequence wouldn’t relate again to the date of unique declaration of consequence. Therefore, one can’t declare himself/ herself as eligible for the marketed publish, as she or he had been declared as “go” after the final for submission of their software kind.”
On this mild it was noticed that in a rustic ruled by the Rule of Legislation, the finality of a judgment was completely crucial and it was not permissible for the events to re-open concluded judgments of the Courtroom.
“The judgments of the Courtroom and significantly of the Honb’le Apex Courtroom of a rustic can’t and shouldn’t be unsettled calmly…it isn’t permissible for the events to re-open the concluded judgments as the identical wouldn’t solely tantamount to an abuse of the method of legislation and Courtroom, however would even have a far reaching antagonistic impact on the administration of justice.”
Accordingly, it was held that there was no legitimate cause to take a distinct view following the mandate underneath Article 141, and the petition was rejected.
Title: Kiran Yadav v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
