Supreme Court Dismisses Rajasthan HC's Plea Against Judicial Service Appointment Of Candidate After FIRs Were Closed
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Rajasthan High Court judgment that directed the appointment of a candidate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination 2021. The candidate had been denied appointment based on pending FIRs against him, which were subsequently closed without charges being filed.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti refused to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court's decision observing, “Having considered the basis for the impugned judgment of the Division Bench granting relief to the respondents, we see no scope to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”
The High Court judgment under challenge, dated July 11, had held that that prolonged pendency of cases without interim orders should not adversely affect justice earned by litigants on the merits of their case. A division bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that the “majesty of Rule of Law” mandates protecting the rights of individuals from being diluted due to delays in adjudication.
The High Court had directed the appointment of Jubair Bhati, a candidate for the Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination 2021. Bhati had been excluded from recruitment based on two FIRs related to a property dispute involving his family. His counsel argued that the FIRs had resulted in negative final reports, with no charges filed or trials conducted.
The High Court noted that no disqualifications, such as conviction or chargesheet, applied to the petitioner. The Court also rejected the state's contention that the matter was stale, given the completion of appointments, training, and postings. It rejected this argument, emphasizing that the absence of an interim order during litigation should not preclude relief on the merits. Citing the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), the High Court underscored that justice should not suffer due to procedural delays.
The High Court ordered that one of five posts from the same advertisement, which remains unfilled at the preliminary stage of fresh recruitment, be offered to the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran along with advocates Gopal Jha (AOR), Vikram Aditya Narayan, Umesh Kumar Yadav, and Shreyash Bhardwaj represented Rajasthan High Court.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Agarwal along with Advocates Javed Khan, Sandeep Mishra, Navneet R. (AOR) represented the candidate.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 28414/2024
Case Title – Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Jubair Bhati & Anr.