- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Rajasthan High Court
- /
- 'Judicial Verdicts Not Like Sand...
'Judicial Verdicts Not Like Sand Dunes, Can't Be Unsettled Lightly': Rajasthan High Court Criticizes Parties Re-Opening Concluded Judgments
Nupur Agrawal
1 July 2025 10:48 AM IST
Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the hallmark of judicial pronouncements is its stability and finality and thus, they should not be unsettled lightly."Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather," Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked while dealing with a plea against cancellation of Petitioner's appointment on the post of Physical...
Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the hallmark of judicial pronouncements is its stability and finality and thus, they should not be unsettled lightly.
"Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather," Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked while dealing with a plea against cancellation of Petitioner's appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor.
Petitioner had appeared in the qualifying exam on September 19, 2022 in which she failed one paper that was submitted for re-evaluation. The result for re-evaluation was declared on November 23, 2022 in which she passed. However, the appointment which was offered to her was cancelled on the ground that she did not possess requisite qualification on the date of written examination for the post i.e. September 25, 2022.
The petitioner contended that the result of the re-evaluation in the qualifying exam must be deemed to be her original result, being applicable from the date of the exam i.e. September 19, 2022, and since she had qualified that before the date of the exam for the post (September 25, 2022), she was eligible for appointment.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Jenany J.R.v S. Rajeevan & Ors. in which it was held that the revised marks after re-evaluation would not be reverted back to the original result wherein the candidate was declared as fail.
The Court took notice of many cases relied upon by the petitioner in which opposite ruling had been given to the effect that if in re-evaluation result, any candidate was declared as pass, it would relate back to the date of declaration of the actual result.
In relation to these references, the Court highlighted that in none of these judgments, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Jenany J.R. was brought into the notice of the co-ordinate benches, and hence, these were passed in ignorance of the Apex Court decision.
“…only view that holds the field is that the re-evaluation result would not relate back to the date of original declaration of result. Hence, one cannot claim himself/ herself as eligible for the advertised post, as he or she had been declared as “pass” after the last for submission of their application form.”
In this light it was observed that in a country governed by the Rule of Law, the finality of a judgment was absolutely imperative and it was not permissible for the parties to re-open concluded judgments of the Court.
“The judgments of the Court and particularly of the Honb'le Apex Court of a country cannot and should not be unsettled lightly...it is not permissible for the parties to re-open the concluded judgments as the same would not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of law and Court, but would also have a far reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice.”
Accordingly, it was held that there was no valid reason to take a different view following the mandate under Article 141, and the petition was rejected.
Title: Kiran Yadav v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 223