Prolonged Adjudication Shall Not Act In Detriment To Cause Of Justice: Rajasthan HC Grants Relief To Civil Judge Aspirant

The Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman held, “For the aforesaid reasons and looking into the pendency involved, the time has come when the rights of a person have to be strengthened and protected, against any dilution of such rights due to the passage of time. Thus, this Court lays down the principle that in cases, where the adjudication remained pending since long and no interim order is operating, but the final relief is strong enough to be sustained in the eye of law, the long pendency and prolonged adjudication shall not act to the detriment of the cause of justice, which is earned by the litigant(s) on the merits of their case. Thus, one of the five posts arising out of the same advertisement which is yet to be filled and is at the preliminary stage of fresh recruitment, shall be offered to the present petitioner.”

Senior Advocate Vikas Balia appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Sachin Acharya appeared for the Respondents.

The Petitioner filed a writ petition praying to quash and set aside the impugned result qua the Petitioner and the note appended with the result to be declared illegal. Further, prayed for directions to the respondent to recommend the petitioner’s name for appointment to the post of Rajasthan Judicial Services-Civil Judge 2021 along with all consequential benefits.

The respondents issued an advertisement for recruitment to Civil Judge Cadre-2021 to be held in accordance with Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (“the Rules of 2010”). The petitioner filled his form under the OBC-NCL category. He disclosed in his form about the pendency of a criminal case registered against him. The examinations were held by the respondents and the petitioner was declared successful and qualified for recruitment. However, the respondents declared the petitioner non-suitable for the appointment in view of the criminal antecedents. These offences were not concealed by the petitioner while filling up the form.

The Court noted that it was a property dispute between the two parties wherein the property of the school was sought to be divided and the petitioner’s family being the original owners of the school, were required to share 50% of the property and also the administration of the school with the complainant-party. When the allegations levelled were thoroughly examined, it was found that nothing came out against the petitioner which could bring him within the purview of disqualification from recruitment in question.

The Court laid down five factors to be considered by the Court i.e. (a) First is the investigation, for which the material brought before the Court shows that the investigation has been thoroughly conducted and has been concluded qua the petitioner resulting into not finding any role of the petitioner in the allegations. (b) Second is the charge sheet. Since the negative Final Report has been submitted, there is no charge sheet and thus, the petitioner was never chargesheeted. (c) Third is the trial. When the charge-sheet was not submitted, the trial never began against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has not faced any trial in his life. (d) Fourth is the issue of conviction. When the investigation itself did not find anything against the petitioner, there was no question of any kind of conviction. (e) Fifth is the issue of honourable acquittal. The question of acquittal and conviction does not arise, as the result of the investigation was in favour of the petitioner.

The Court observed, “This Court is also conscious that the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit is founded upon the principle that due to court proceedings or acts of court, no party should suffer. The cases which are pending for many years and no interim order is operating, then the merits of such cases cannot be ignored, simply because no interim order was operating, and therefore, in the interest of justice, such cases are required to be decided on merits, and without being influenced from non- operation of the interim order.”

It was also opined that the majesty of the Rule of Law requires that a person who has approached the Court in time without any delay and who has laid threadbare all his details without any failure and remains under the umbrella of the adjudication for a long time, cannot be denied the benefit on the count of time lapse during which the matter remained pending. Unless a person who approaches the Court well within time is always put under a minimum protective shield, the concept of the Rule of Law is likely to diminish, which cannot be permitted by this Court, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Respondents to give an appointment to the Petitioner after completing all the necessary formalities.

Cause Title: Jubair Bhati v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:28296-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikas Balia, Advocates Nishant Bora and Ashok Choudhary

Respondents: Senior Advocate Sachin Acharya, Advocates Chayan Bothra and Samyak Dalal.

Click here to read/download the Order