Long Pendency And Prolonged Adjudication Shall Not Act To The Detriment of The Cause of Justice: Rajasthan HC
It is definitely a matter of profound happiness to note that the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Jubair Bhati vs Rajasthan High Court and Ors in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17047/2022 and cited in Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:28296-DB that was pronounced on July 11, 2024 has in the fitness of things been most forthright to pronounce clearly, cogently and convincingly that long pendency and prolonged adjudication shall not act to the detriment of the cause of justice, which is earned by the litigant on the merits of their case. It was also observed by the High Court that where the adjudication remained pending for long and no interim order is operating, but the final relief is strong enough to be sustained in the eye of the law. Most commendably, we thus see that the Jodhpur High Court after perusing the entire case and so also weighing the evidence on record deemed it totally fit to allow the writ petition and thus very rightly directed the Respondents to give an appointment to the Petitioner after completing all the necessary formalities. Absolutely right!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur comprising of Hon’ble Dr Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Hon’ble Mr Justice Munnuri Laxman sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following prayer: (i) issue direction to quash and set aside the impugned result dated 30/08/2022 (Annex.8) qua the petitioner and the note No.6 appended with the result may be declared illegal. Further, issue direction 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; (ii) in alternative, issue direction to the respondent to decide the representation dated 01/09/2022 (Annex.15) submitted by the petitioner within the stipulated period of two weeks with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if the need arise. (iii) Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that, “Brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner completed his B.B.A., LLB. (Hons.) Course in the year 2018 and was a topper of his batch and scored 8.3 Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). The petitioner was awarded gold medal being the first rank-holder in his batch.
2.1 The respondents issued an advertisement for recruitment to Civil Judge Cadre-2021 on 22.07.2021 to be held in accordance with Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2010”). The petitioner filled his form under OBC-NCL category. He disclosed in his form about pendency of criminal cases registered against him. The examinations were held by the respondents and the petitioner was declared successful in the main examination for recruitment in the Civil Judge Cadre-2021.
2.2 Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview on 22.08.2022. Pursuant to the interviews, the result of the recruitment of Civil Judge Cadre was declared on 30.08.2022 wherein the petitioner stood at serial No.152, as he secured 166.5 marks and was qualified for recruitment. The cut-off for OBC-NCL category was 163 and on merit, the petitioner was entitled to be recruited. However, the respondents declared the petitioner non-suitable for the appointment in view of the criminal antecedents.
2.3 The petitioner was facing an FIR No.5/2021 lodged at Police Station Kuchaman City, Nagaur for offences under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 341 and 384 of IPC. The allegations in the FIR pertain to family educational institution in the name of Hightech Shikshan Sansthan, Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagaur, in which half of the stakes were sold to one Bhanwar Singh, who became the complainant as the dispute arose between both the parties regarding running of the Educational Institution. The dispute arising out of the same transaction further culminated into another FIR No.249/2021 lodged at Police Station Kuchaman City. The aforesaid offences were not concealed by the petitioner while filling up the form.”
Quite significantly, the Division Bench propounds in para 21 that, “This Court while considering the aforesaid factual matrix is conscious of the fact that the judicial service is a place where the duties to be discharged are of very pious nature and to maintain the high standards envisaged in the Constitution for the judiciary, the parameters for appointment of the judges have to be strictly construed. The strict construction of the laws have to be made and a deeper assessment has to be followed so as to ensure that at the threshold the candidate/recruitee, who has passed on merits, shall be able to stand up to the touchstone of the constitutional majesty which has been bestowed upon the selected candidates by virtue of their merit.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench points out explicitly in para 21.1 that, “The question of criminal antecedents has been a long drawn cause of concern for the legal fraternity as on one hand it is the requirement of the job where the best and the cleanest people are required to be given opportunity to become public servants and on the other hand, there are many youngsters, who are embroiled in a controversy for no good reasons and despite having high merit are deprived of the chance to serve the nation as a public servant. On perusal of the precedent law cited by counsel for the parties, it is clear that the filter has to be of highest order so as to throw out the person having slightest of the criminal antecedents involving moral turpitude and resultant convictions. Here is a case where a young man, who was a gold medalist in his law course, and has secured the qualifying merit as well as passed the examination, which includes written exam and the interview in recruitment in question. He was entitled to be recruited but has been deprived even when he has not concealed the information of the FIRs. The FIRs, which were in vogue at the time of the process in question, have been examined by this Court and they clearly reflect that it was a property dispute between the two parties wherein 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 the 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 present petitioner which could bring him within the purview of disqualification from recruitment in question.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 21.2 that, “The registered society in dispute was restructured and it was envisaged that they could run the educational society together but as the fate would reflect a dispute arose in the running of the society/educational institution and the parties fell apart on the terms of contract and agreement to sale which were in existence between them. The petitioner was not in arena of the dispute, the same being one of a family property but was also consumed as a part of the joint property dispute and resultantly, the same resulted in the two FIRs bearing No.5/2021 and 249/2021 being lodged. Broadly, the FIRs do not show any kind of moral turpitude or any kind of specific involvement of the petitioner.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 22 that, “There are five factors, which have been considered by this Court. (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 is 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.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench observes in para 27 that, “The precedent law in the case of Akashdeep Morya (supra) laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also in a way helps the petitioner because it is only laying down that a very strong parameter has to remain in application while the person is being considered to be recruited as a Civil Judge and without qualifying such strong parameter of criminal antecedent/ character, a person cannot be judged fit to be a candidate to serve the constitutional duties of a judge. We have arrived at a firm conclusion that even the strict parameters, which are there in the case of Akashdeep Morya (supra), are qualified by the petitioner to be recruited in the examination in question.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 28 that, “As far as the question of the vacancy is concerned, it is noticed that the petitioner came and filed a writ petition, which was at an appropriate time in November 2022, as soon as being aggrieved, we find that at that time, the unfilled vacancies were there in the present recruitment. Even if going by the statistics provided by the respondents today, this Court finds that there are 5 vacancies, which remained unfilled due to resignations and were carried forward in the next recruitment, which is going on but has not yet culminated even to the stage of final examination and thus, at a preliminary stage, one of these vacancies can be given to a candidate, who is otherwise qualified on merits and law.”
Most remarkably, the Division Bench expounds in para 30 that, “This Court is of the considered opinion that the majesty of 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 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 Rule of Law is likely to diminish, which cannot be permitted by this Court.”
Most significantly and as a corollary, the Division Bench then mandates in para 31 postulating that, “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.”
Most remarkably, the Division Bench then directs in para 32 holding that, “The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner after completing all the necessary formalities. All the actual benefits arising out of such appointment shall be notional in nature though the petitioner’s appointment and seniority shall relate back to his merit in the over all merit prepared in the Civil Judge Cadre of the year 2021. It shall be open for the respondents to conduct the training of the petitioner alongwith the fresh batch of 2024, training of which is likely to be conducted anytime later in this year. The appointment shall be accordingly granted. All the notional benefits shall accrue from the date of appointment which shall be given to the petitioner within a period of three months from receiving the certified copy of this order. The respondents are directed to utilize one seat for such appointment from fresh recruitment going on for the year 2024, which has been carried forward from the recruitment process of the year 2021.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 33 that, “All pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Author Bio
