Litigant Who Secured Relief Based on a Specific Judgment Must Accept Its Fate When Overturned: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-09-09

Can't Pick and Choose: Litigant Must 'Swim or Sink' with Relied-Upon Judgment, Rules Rajasthan HC

JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling on the principles of judicial consistency, has held that a litigant who obtains relief by relying on a specific court judgment cannot later argue their case is different when that precedent is overturned. Justice Rekha Borana, dismissing a writ petition, emphatically stated that a party who claims similarity to obtain an order must "swim or sink together" with the fate of that precedent.

The court upheld the cancellation of the appointment of Shaitan Ram as a Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade, an appointment he had secured based on a judgment that was later set aside by the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case: A Rollercoaster of Litigation

The case originates from a 2013 recruitment drive for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade. The petitioner, Shaitan Ram, had work experience with Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, obtained through a placement agency. Initially, he was denied bonus marks for this experience.

His legal battle began with a writ petition which was dismissed. However, in a subsequent special appeal, he was granted liberty to file a review petition, arguing that the court had not considered the Division Bench's ruling in Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2016), which had allowed bonus marks for experience gained through placement agencies.

Relying solely on the Yadvendra Shandilya precedent, Shaitan Ram's review petition was allowed in 2017. He was awarded the bonus marks, which secured him a place on the merit list and a subsequent appointment in 2018.

Arguments Before the Court

The pivotal turn came when the State of Rajasthan challenged the Yadvendra Shandilya judgment before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the Rajasthan High Court Division Bench dismissed the Yadvendra Shandilya petitions in December 2023, validating the government's original, more restrictive criteria for awarding bonus marks.

Following this reversal, the state authorities cancelled Shaitan Ram's appointment in June 2025, triggering the present writ petition.

Petitioner's Arguments: * Counsel for Shaitan Ram argued that his case was distinct from Yadvendra Shandilya , which primarily concerned experience with Central Government agencies, whereas his experience was with a state university. * He contended that a subsequent 2021 amendment to the recruitment rules, which now includes the university for bonus marks, should protect his seven-year-long service.

Respondent's Arguments: * The State countered that since the petitioner's appointment was a direct consequence of the Yadvendra Shandilya judgment, its reversal must logically lead to the cancellation of his appointment. * They argued that the petitioner cannot be allowed to distance himself from a precedent he explicitly used to his advantage. * The 2021 rule amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to a 2013 recruitment process.

Court's Rationale: The 'Swim or Sink' Doctrine

Justice Rekha Borana found no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court noted that the petitioner's review petition, which granted him the crucial bonus marks, was allowed only in light of the Yadvendra Shandilya judgment.

In a key observation, the Court held:

"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) ."

The judgment cited the legal principle 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 also dismissed the argument regarding the 2021 rule amendment, stating it cannot have retrospective effect on a 2013 recruitment. It further noted that the amendment itself reinforces the fact that, prior to 2021, experience with the said university was not eligible for bonus marks.

Final Decision and Implications

Finding no grounds to interfere with the cancellation order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The decision serves as a stern reminder to litigants that opportunistically relying on legal precedents is a high-risk strategy; the benefits gained are inextricably linked to the continued validity of that precedent.