Vimal Chand Jain S/O Shri Padam ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6435 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13771/2019

Vimal Chand Jain and Ors.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
The State Of Rajasthan and Ors.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Gajender Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr.   Rajesh Maharishi, AAG
                               Mr.   Ayush Singh for
                               Mr.   Punit Singhvi
                               Mr.   Bhagwat Singh
                               Mr.   M.F. Baig



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                     Order

12/11/2021

The matter comes up on an application No.1/2021 filed by

the petitioner seeking disposal of the writ petition in the light of

order dated 21.01.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9/2021, Rajnish Kumar Atrya &

Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Learned counsels for the respondents seriously dispute that

the controversy raised in the instant writ petition stands covered

by the aforesaid judgment in case of Rajnish Kumar Atrya. They

submit that the aforesaid judgment is based on the judgment in

case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan dated 21.11.2017

which in turn was based on the judgments in cases of Hemlata

Shrimali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and Suman Bai &

Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. rendered in altogether different

facts and circumstances. They further submit that recently, the

(2 of 3) [CW-13771/2019]

Hon'ble Apex Court has, in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Arbind Jee held that seniority cannot be given to an employee

before he is borne in the service, which is being claimed in the

instant writ petition.

The question as to whether the controversy raised by the

petitioners in the writ petition stands covered by the judgment

relied upon by them or not or the question whether the petitioners

are entitled for the relief claimed therein by relying upon the

contention of their learned counsel that the issue stands resolved

by a particular judgment, cannot be decided without entering into

facts and merits of the instant case as also of the judgment relied

upon especially when the learned counsels for the respondents

dispute the contention so made by the petitioners. It is trite law

that a judgment is rendered by the Court in the facts and

circumstances of the case and it can be taken as a precedent only

if similar facts and circumstances are existing in the case in hand.

In these circumstances, this writ petition cannot be simply

disposed of taking into consideration the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners that it stands covered by a judgment of

this Court. It goes without saying that for each and every issue

involved in a litigation, there may be several precedential law of

either the Hon'ble Apex Court or of the High Courts which, may

sometime, be conflicting also. To assess the precedential value of

a judgment, merits of the case are required to be examined.

In view thereof, the prayer of the petitioners to decide the

instant writ petition in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in case of Rajnish Kumar Atrya (supra) cannot

be entertained by way of an interim application and shall be

considered at the time of admission/hearing of the writ petition.

(3 of 3) [CW-13771/2019]

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

PRAGATI/40

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)