SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 348

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Manju Kumari, D/o. Kanhaiya Lal – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan – Respondent 
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9018 of 2026
Decided On : 20-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Anand Sharma.

The benefits of a judicial decision are restricted to those who actively litigate. Individuals who remain inactive, often termed fence-sitters, and fail to agitate their rights in a timely manner are not entitled to claim the parity or relief granted to diligent litigants.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Parity in appointment - Benefit of a previous judgment - Eligibility to claim relief granted in earlier litigation - Court held that benefits of a judgment are to be restricted to the original petitioners and those who had already approached the court prior to the judgment - Fence-sitters who remained indolent and failed to agitate their rights within a reasonable time are not entitled to claim the benefit of such judgment. (Para 3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a direction for appointment to a teaching position, claiming parity with candidates who were previously granted similar relief by a judgment. The petitioner requested that the recruitment process be reconsidered based on the directions given in the earlier case.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the previous judgment explicitly restricted its operational scope to the petitioners involved in that matter and those who had already approached the court before the date of that order. The court observed that the petitioner was a fence-sitter who failed to initiate litigation within a reasonable timeframe.

Issues: Whether the benefit of a judicial order can be extended to a candidate who did not approach the court with diligence during the pendency of related litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Benefits arising from a judicial pronouncement are not available to those who choose to remain inactive and wait for others to succeed in litigation. The principle of restrictive application applies to ensure that only those who diligently agitate their rights within a reasonable time are rewarded.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks appointment based on precedent, citing commonality with previously decided cases. (Para 1 , 2)
2. dismissal of petition via the doctrine of fence-sitters. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

Order :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with following prayer :

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed on grounds above mentioned that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and

i) To Issue appropriate order or direction to respondents to give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade III Level II as the petitioners have scored more marks than already appointed candidates.

ii) To direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners in the aforesaid recruitment and allow the petitioners to participate in the further recruitment process.

iii) To direct to respondents to initiate the process of final recruitment and final appointment on the basis of revised result so that the petitioners having higher marks could be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III Level II.

iv) Any other order or relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2026 passed in S.B. CWP No. 13045/2025 (Yasmeen Bee D/o Nijamuddin & ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. & other connected matters Hence, the petitioner should also be extended the similar benefits.

3. This Court finds that while deciding the case of Yasmeen Bee D/o Nijamuddin & ors. (Supra), the benefits of the judgment were confined only to the petitioners before the Court prior to date of judgment in the case of Yasmeen Bee D/o Nijamuddin & Ors. passed on 11.05.2026 and it was specifically prohibited that those who were fence-sitters and remained indolent and failed to agitate their rights within reasonable time, shall not be entitled to claim benefit of judgment in the case of Yasmeen Bee D/o Nijamuddin & ors.. Para 18 of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced hereunder:-

"18. However, the benefit of this judgment shall remain confined only to the petitioners before this Court and to those candidates, who had already approached this Court and whose writ petitions are pending consideration. Any fence-sitter who remained indolent and failed to agitate his rights within reasonable time shall not be entitled to claim benefit on the basis of the present judgment."

4. In view of above, this Court does not find any scope of interference in the present writ petition, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top