Delay In Adjudication Doesn't Affect Justice Earned On Merits: Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Civil Judge Candidate Named In Criminal Case

The Rajasthan High Court has laid down that justice earned on merits of the case by litigants shall not be adversely affected in cases pending for a long time due to prolonged adjudication with no interim order operating.

In doing so, the high court observed that the rights of a person needs to be protected against its dilution due to such delay.

A division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that the "majesty of Rule of Law" requires that a person who has approached the Court in time and without any delay, 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 due to time lapse during which the matter remained pending.

The High Court further said that 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.

"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," the high court underscored. 

The observations came as the high court directed the appointment of a successful candidate in Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination 2021, who was declared non-suitable for the post of Civil Judge in light of two pending FIRs against him under IPC Section 420.

The division bench rejected the argument of the respondents that the matter has become stale requiring no interference from the Court since the appointments as well as training of all the selected candidates was already done and no interim order was operating in the case based on which any seat was kept vacant for the petitioner.

The petitioner–Jubair Bhati, was a candidate of the Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination, 2021 who said that he was entitled for recruitment on merit, however, was denied the same based on 2 FIRs pending against him in relation to a property dispute in which his family was involved.

The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel Vikas Balia, along with advocates Nishant Bora and Ashok Choudhary argued that the FIRs had already culminated into negative final report with respect to any involvement of the petitioner. It was argued that the disqualification criteria was regarding the candidate being convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. However, the trial had not even begun against the petitioner, and there was no charge-sheet against him since the investigation revealed no offence being made out against him.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the respondents argued that it was only after an objective consideration made by the employer that the petitioner was denied the appointment. Furthermore, the counsel submitted that the matter had reached a belated stage requiring no interference of the Court in light of culmination of the appointments followed by one-year training and postings, especially when no interim order was active in the case leading to no seat being reserved for the petitioner.

After hearing the contentions on both the sides, the high court said while it is conscious that judicial services is a place where "duties to be discharged are of very pious nature" requiring a high filter to sort out those with criminal antecedents involving moral turpitude, however, in the present case, a meritorious candidate, was embroiled in a property dispute being part of the joint family. The Court also highlighted that even after investigation, no offence was made out against the petitioner that could disqualify him from the recruitment. The two FIRs showed no offence involving any kind of moral turpitude or any involvement of the petitioner, the high court added. 

Taking into account, the investigation–which did not find any role of the petitioner, the petitioner not being chargesheeted, no trial faced by petitioner and hence no conviction of the petitioner, no question of acquittal, the High Court observed that none of the two FIRs pointed towards disqualification of the petitioner from being recruited.

“The disqualifications, in overall legal scenario, includes investigation being carried out, convictions, trials, charge-sheets, offences having been made out but none of the disqualifications are touching the present factual matrix as the petitioner was neither tried nor convicted nor faced any kind of trial nor any charge-sheet but merely there was an allegation which culminated into an FIR and the FIR after thorough investigation qua the petitioner having resulted into no offence having been made out against the petitioner," the high court said. 

Addressing the question of the matter being stale and there being no vacancy, the Court quoted the maxim, “actus curiae neminem gravabit” to observe that due to court proceedings or acts of court, no party should suffer. The high court opined that the merits of cases pending for many years should not be ignored simply because no interim order was operating in the cases. Such case should be decided on its merits without being influenced from non-operation of the interim order.

Allowing the plea, the high court directed that 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 petitioner. 

Title: Jubair Bhati v Rajasthan High Court & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 211

Click Here To Read/Download Order