Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Mohd. Saleem, S/o. Mohd. Ali - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Pr. Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20864 of 2013
Decided On : 24-02-2023
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 141 - JUDICIAL PRECEDENT - BINDING NATURE - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL - CANCELLATION OF APPOINTMENT - CRIMINAL CASE PENDING - RELAXATION OF POLICY - SIMILARLY SITUATED CANDIDATES - NEGATIVE PARITY - SYMPATHETIC VIEW - DISMISSAL OF PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a candidate selected for the post of Constable, was denied appointment due to a pending criminal case against him. He approached the court and obtained a favorable order, but the State appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was offered the appointment. However, after the Supreme Court upheld the State's appeal and quashed the lower court orders, the petitioner's appointment was canceled. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his appointment, arguing that it violated the principles of natural justice and that he should be treated similarly to other candidates who were given appointments despite pending criminal cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment was justified as it was based on the Supreme Court's judgment. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and decorum and stated that it was bound to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the judgment was per incuriam, stating that it was settled law that even obiter dicta of the Supreme Court is binding on lower courts. Additionally, the court held that the petitioner could not claim negative parity or seek to perpetuate illegality by relying on the fact that similarly situated candidates were allowed to continue in their positions.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment was justified in light of the Supreme Court's judgment? 2. Whether the petitioner could claim negative parity or seek to perpetuate illegality by relying on the fact that similarly situated candidates were allowed to continue in their positions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment was justified as it was based on the Supreme Court's judgment. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and decorum and stated that it was bound to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 2. The court held that the petitioner could not claim negative parity or seek to perpetuate illegality by relying on the fact that similarly situated candidates were allowed to continue in their positions. The court stated that a wrong act cannot be cited as precedence to claim parity nor does it create a right in favor of similarly situated persons.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment was justified and that he could not claim negative parity or seek to perpetuate illegality.
ORDER:
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :-
(ii) any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of humble petitioner.
(iii) cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of humble petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 1996, the petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Constable.
3. Counsel submits that at the time of submission of application form, no criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Counsel submits that after selection of the petitioner, when application form for police verification was given to the petitioner, he disclosed one fact regarding pendency of a criminal case against him. Counsel submits that appointment was not given to any of the selected candidates against whom criminal cases were pending in pursuance of Circular dated 29.4.1995. Counsel submits that subsequently the aforesaid Circular was withdrawn by the respondents vide order dated 27.7.2001 and one time relaxation was given to such selected candidates against whom the criminal cases were pending. Counsel submits that after passing of the order dated 27.7.2001 a list of 114 candidates was prepared for giving appointment. Counsel submits that prior to the issuance of order dated 27.7.2001, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3364/1998 and the same was allowed vide order dated 10.12.1998 and direction was issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable. Counsel submits that against the aforesaid order, the respondents submitted D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 515/1999 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 9.7.2001. Counsel submits that the petitioner was offered appointment vide order dated 22.11.2002 and all of a sudden, without any notice to the petitioner, appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents vide impugned order dated 3.6.2010. Counsel submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 26.5.2000. Counsel submits that once appointment was given to the petitioner, he has got a vested right and the said right cannot be snatched by the respondents in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that the appointment was not offered to the petitioner in pursuance of the directions issued by this court, rather the same was offered to the petitioner on the basis of a policy decision taken by the respondents by which relaxation was given to the candidates against whom a criminal case was pending. Counsel submits that services / appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the basis of judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 782/2004 filed by the State respondents against the orders passed by the Single and Division Benches of this court. Counsel submits that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is per incuriam and the services of petitioner cannot be discontinued on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Counsel submits that when appointment has been given to similarly situated 113 candidates, against whom also a criminal case was pending and relaxation was granted to them, then similar treatment should have been given to the petitioner also. Placing reliance on the following judgments, counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this court is warranted :-
(ii) Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016 ) 8 SCC 471
(iii) Union of India & Ors. v.
The Supreme Court's judgment is binding on lower courts, and a lower court cannot question its correctness even if it believes that the Supreme Court did not consider all relevant points.
Innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation should not be ousted from service, especially when there is no fraud or misrepresentation on their part.
Termination without fraud or misrepresentation, especially after the appointee had served for a considerable period, would cause undue hardship and ruin their careers, making it unsustainable in the ....
The termination of an employee must be based on valid grounds and must follow principles of natural justice, and lack of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on the employee's part can render the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of appointment based on adverse antecedents must adhere to the principles of natural justice and relevant legal provisions, a....
Public servants convicted of a criminal charge can be dismissed without a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution, and the principle of parity in punishment must consider the....
A candidate's non-involvement in a criminal case, confirmed by removal from the FIR, allows for consideration in the current recruitment process despite prior allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
