Appointment Based On Quashed Precedent Cannot Survive: Rajasthan High Court

In a case where a litigant was granted appointment based on a precedent which was later quashed, the Rajasthan High Court said that once a litigant is granted relief based on a judgment which later gets set aside, he cannot seek to distinguish his case from the judgment based on which he was given appointment.

Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a petition filed against cancellation of petitioner's appointment by the State pursuant to setting aside of a decision–Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. Vs. State (Ayurved Department) & Ors–based on which the petitioner was granted bonus marks in the recruitment process and in turn the appointment.

"...this Court is of the clear opinion that once the petitioner chose to be governed by the ratio laid down in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) and even was granted the relief in terms of the ratio laid down in the said judgment, he cannot be now at this stage plead that his case is distinguishable from that in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra). 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". 

The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade in which as per one of the conditions, there were bonus marks to the candidates having work experience as per the prescribed terms. Initially the petitioner was not granted the bonus marks, and his writ petition was also dismissed.

In his appeal, the division bench of the high court disposed it off granting him liberty to file a review petition only on the ground that an earlier judgment–Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. Vs. State (Ayurved Department) & Ors. was not taken into consideration by the single judge.

This review petition was allowed in light of the ratio of the Yadvendra Case, and resultantly the petitioner was granted bonus marks, and in turn the appointment.

However the State challenged the decision in Yadvendra Shandilya before Supreme Court which set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the high court's Division Bench for decision afresh. 

Thereafter the division bench proceeded to dismiss the plea in its judgment dated 12.12.2023. 

The State thus said that since the bonus marks were granted to the petitioner based on Yadvendra Shandilya decision, with the decision being set aside, the petitioenr was no more entitled to the bonus marks, and the recruitment. This order was challenged before the High Court.

It was the case of the petitioner, that the Yadvendra Case was challenged on two grounds. It was submitted that while it was set aside only in relation to one of the two grounds, the other ground still stood and his case was governed under that second ground which had not been set aside.

Reference was made to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Narendra Kumar Chobdar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in which it was held that, “once an order is granted following/based on a particular order passed in other case, the petitioner claiming similarity while obtaining the said order has to swim or sink together i.e. the order in subsequent case has to follow the same fate as in the earlier case or vice versa”.

The court thus said:

"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". 

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Shaitan Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 310

Click Here To Read/Download Order