Latest news with #SingleBenchofJustice
News18
01-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
'Judgments Are Not Sand Dunes': Rajasthan HC Upholds Finality Of Court Verdicts
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
Time of India
27-06-2025
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC grants bail to minor in POCSO case; cites education, mental health, and social report
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside orders from lower courts, granting bail to a juvenile accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The applicant, a 16-year-old, was in an observation home since 16 February 2025. The surety, who is the father of the juvenile in conflict with law, will also provide an undertaking that the juvenile will not come in contact with any "bad element" and that the police station will be informed if he engages in any unlawful act, the court ordered. The social status report concluded that denying bail to the juvenile would negatively impact his education, examinations, and mental state, and that granting bail would be appropriate considering his overall development. The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal allowed a revision petition filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Balod, and the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Balod, had earlier rejected the bail application of the juvenile. The case involves registered at Balod police station for alleged offences under Sections 137(2) and 65(1) of BNS, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act . by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cuối cùng, chơi miễn phí game chiến thuật hay nhất 2025! Sea of Conquest Phát ngay Undo The victim's mother lodged the First Information Report (FIR), stating that the applicant abducted her minor daughter on February 14, 2025. The victim was found with the applicant near a river the following day and later informed her parents that the applicant had established a physical relationship with her. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is innocent, has no criminal history, and has been falsely implicated. He also stated that there is no likelihood of the applicant's release bringing him into association with known criminals or exposing him to moral, physical, or psychological danger. The Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the bail, citing that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was awaited. However, he confirmed that the social status report favoured the applicant and he had no prior criminal antecedents. Notably, the victim's parents, who appeared through video conferencing from the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), raised no objection to granting bail to the applicant. The court referenced Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which mandates the release of a child in conflict with law on bail unless specific conditions are met, such as a likelihood of association with criminals, exposure to danger, or defeating the ends of justice. The report submitted by the Probation Officer highlighted that the juvenile lives with his parents in Tapara village, Balod district. Both parents are daily wage labourers. The juvenile is a regular Class 11 student at a government higher secondary school in Gurur and has resided in a government tribal hostel since Class 6. The report stated that his parents, neighbours, teachers, and hostel superintendent described his behaviour and conduct as good. He has no prior history of associating with anti-social elements or engaging in unlawful activities. The report also mentioned that the victim is of the same age group as the applicant, and they had a friendship and romantic relationship, communicating over the phone. The juvenile's practical examinations were from 5 March to 12 March 2025, and his annual examinations were scheduled from 18 March 2025. He expressed a desire to appear for his exams. The court observed that the social status report did not indicate that releasing the applicant on bail would bring him into association with any known criminal, expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or otherwise defeat the ends of justice. The High Court directed the applicant's parents or guardian to furnish a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The applicant will be released into the custody of the guardian upon furnishing the bond and submitting copies of their Aadhaar card and a coloured postcard-size photograph, to be verified by the trial court.
