'Judgments Are Not Sand Dunes': Rajasthan HC Upholds Finality Of Court Verdicts

News18

3 days ago

Last Updated:
The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, emphatically observed that judicial verdicts must possess permanence and should not be reopened at will.
Reaffirming the principle that judicial verdicts must possess stability and finality, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of a Physical Training Instructor appointment, holding that re-evaluation results do not retroactively confer eligibility for public posts.
The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, emphatically observed that judicial verdicts must possess permanence and should not be reopened at will. 'Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather," the Court stated, reinforcing the principle that concluded court rulings must be treated with finality.
Background of the Case
The case arose after the petitioner, who had appeared for a qualifying examination on September 19, 2022, failed one paper but later passed it after re-evaluation. The re-evaluated result was declared on November 23, 2022.
Meanwhile, the recruitment exam for the Physical Training Instructor post was held on September 25, 2022. Though the petitioner was initially selected, her appointment was later cancelled on the grounds that she did not possess the required qualification on the date of the recruitment examination.
The petitioner argued that the re-evaluation result should relate back to the original date of the qualifying exam, thereby rendering her eligible for the post as of September 25, 2022. In support of her claim, she cited several High Court decisions where courts had held that re-evaluation results declaring a candidate as 'pass" would relate back to the original examination date.
The Single Judge pointed out that in the judgments cited by the petitioner, the Jenany JR precedent was not brought to the attention of the coordinate benches, and therefore, those rulings could not be relied upon.
'Only view that holds the field is that the re-evaluation result would not relate back to the date of original declaration of result. Hence, one cannot claim himself/ herself as eligible for the advertised post, as he or she had been declared as 'pass' after the last date for submission of their application form," the Court held.
Emphasizing the importance of stability in legal pronouncements, the Court stated that in a country governed by the Rule of Law, judgments, especially those of the Supreme Court, cannot be unsettled lightly.
'It is not permissible for the parties to re-open the concluded judgments as the same would not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of law and Court, but would also have a far-reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice," the Court cautioned.
Concluding that there was no justification to depart from the binding precedent laid down by the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, the High Court dismissed the petition, thereby reinforcing the legal position that revised results cannot be treated as having retrospective effect in public recruitment matters.
About the Author
First Published:
July 01, 2025, 12:58 IST