Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Neeraj Meena (2024:Rj-Jd:9529-Db) on 23 February, 2024
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 889/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Home
Department, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Cum Member Secretary Of
Selection Board For Constable Recruitment, Sirohi.
4. Police Commissioner Cum Chairman, Selection Board For
Constable Recruitment, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Aashish Kumar S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of
Vpo Mawal, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 813/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Home
Department, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Jitendra Prajapat S/o Bhuri Lal Prajapat, Aged About 21 Years,
Kumarvada Bagdunda, Tehsil Gugunda, District Udaipur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 818/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Department Jaipur
Rajasthan
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:55:35 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB] (2 of 10) [SAW-889/2022]
Praveen Kumar Parmar S/o Shri Dhuleshwar Parmar, Aged About
24 Years, Village Ghodi, Tehsil Rishabdeo, Post Ghodi, District
Udaipur
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 850/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Cum Member Secretary Of
Selection Board For Constable Recruitment, Dungarpur.
4. Police Commissioner Cum Chairman Selection Board, For
Constable Recruitment, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Shailesh Kharadi S/o Kawaji Kharadi, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Mukam Ratapani (Bokhala Basti), Ghamri Ahara, Tehsil
Bhichiwada Distt. Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 851/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Department, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur
Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Dungarpur
Rajasthan
----Appellants
Versus
Neeraj Meena S/o Ramesh Chandra Meena, Aged About 25
Years, Village Usmaniya, Post Bhewadi, Tehsil Aspur, District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 907/2022
(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:55:36 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB] (3 of 10) [SAW-889/2022]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Pratapgarh District
Pratapgarh Rajasthan.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Range Udaipur
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Mukesh Meena S/o Kanhaiya Lal Meena, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Kachi Basti Village Bagwas Tehsil Pratapgarh, District
Pratapgarh Rajasthan Pin Code 312605.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 922/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi District Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Range Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Rahul Meena S/o Amra Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 8 Nahar
Ke Pass Village Rajpura Post Sewera Tehsil Pindwara District
Sirohi Rajasthan 307022.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1022/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary (Home),
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Recruitment Rajasthan Jaipur
3. Superintend Of Police, Udaipur
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:55:36 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB] (4 of 10) [SAW-889/2022]
1. Chunni Lal Bhagora S/o Dinesh Chandra, Aged About 26
Years, Village Bhagorapada Ukhedi Post Kanbai Tehsil
Kherwara District Udaipur Rajasthan
2. Mohan Lal Meena S/o Kalu Kal Meena, Aged About 24
Years, Village Velifalla Post Kalibheet Tehsil Lasadiya
District Udaipur Rajasthan
3. Dinesh Meena S/o Ram Lal Meena, Aged About 24 Years,
Village Manawatpura Post Kali Bheet Tehsil Lasadiya
District Udaipur Rajasthan
4. Mukesh Meena S/o Kalu Lal Meena, Aged About 26 Years,
Village Manpuriyo Ka Guda Post Koon Gopalpura Tehsil
Lasadiya District Udaipur Rajasthan
5. Rahul Daranga S/o Prakas Lal, Aged About 21 Years,
Village Gatrali Post Deri Tehsil Kherwara District Udaipur
Rajasthan
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1081/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi District Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
4. The Inspector General Police, Range Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Jitendra Meena S/o Nehru Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village
Lalpura, Tehsil Bali, District Pali, Rajasthan 306504.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1111/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi District Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
4. The Inspector General Police, Range Jodhpur Rajasthan.
----Appellants
(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:55:36 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB] (5 of 10) [SAW-889/2022]
Versus
Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Chhoga Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Ro
Village Lalpura Post Malnoo Tehsil Bali District Pali Rajasthan
Pincode 306514
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tapendra Singh for Mr. B.L. Bhati,
AAG.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia.
Mr. Ripudaman Singh.
Mr. Shambhoo Singh
Mr. Digvijay Singh Chouhan
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
23/02/2024
Delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The applications
stand allowed.
2. Heard on merits.
3. These appeals arise out of the common order dated
14.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of
challenge to the action of the appellant-State, whereby the
respondents petitioners, who, on the date of commencement of
the process of selection, were eligible, were rendered ineligible on
account of amendment in the Rules during the pendency of the
selection process.
4. The learned Single Judge relying upon settled legal position
that the rules of game could not be altered to the prejudice of the
candidates after the process of selection has commenced, held
that the amendment in the Rules could not adversely affect those,
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB] (6 of 10) [SAW-889/2022]
who had already participated in the selection process. Aggrieved
by the aforesaid decision, these appeals have been preferred by
the State.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant State would
submit that in the advertisement dated 4th December, 2019, under
which the process of selection was initiated, it was clearly stated
that it is open for the State to amend any rules, orders, circulars
and the same will become effective immediately. It was also
stated that in the matter of reservation also, the process of
selection would be governed by latest instructions and rules. The
advertisement further clearly stated that the physical standards
would be as per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate
Service Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules'). What was under the
Rules then existed was provided in the advertisement. As the
Rules had undergone amendment, as a result of deletion of
proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules, the criteria of
physical fitness also underwent change, and therefore, if for that
reason the respondents have been rendered ineligible, no illegality
has been committed. He would submit that these are specific
conditions in the advertisement that the State reserves its rights
to amend the rules, circulars, instructions at any time during the
process of selection and the same were never challenged. It is
only when the petitioners failed to fulfil the minimum standards of
physical fitness as per the amended provision, they came to the
Court, therefore, the writ petitions are barred by rule of estoppel.
Last submission of learned counsel for the appellant State is that
the issue as to whether the rules of game could be changed after
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB] (7 of 10) [SAW-889/2022]
the process of selection has begun is pending consideration before
the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the
decisions, which have been relied upon by the learned Single
Judge could not be cited as a binding precedent.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
supported the order of the learned Single Judge by submitting that
the order of the learned Single Judge proceeds on application of
settled legal principles that once the process of selection has been
initiated, the rules of game cannot be allowed to be changed,
much less any amendment which rendered ineligible those
candidates, who, on the date of the initiation of process of
selection were eligible. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors.
Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Anr.
[2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140], it has been submitted that the
fact that an issue of law is pending consideration before the Larger
Bench would not mean that the said decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court loses value as a precedent. He would submit that
there is no order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of
the pending cases to hold otherwise, therefore, no illegality has
been committed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the
considered view that there is no illegality committed by the
learned Single Judge in holding the action of the appellant illegal.
8. It is an admitted position that at the time when the
advertisement was issued, the provisions contained in Rule 14 of
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB] (8 of 10) [SAW-889/2022]
the Rules particularly the proviso and the prescription given under
the advertisement made the respondents/writ petitioners eligible
candidates. This aspect is also not disputed by the learned State
counsel. It is quite apparent that subsequently, during the
process of selection, all of a sudden, amendment was made in the
Rules. The effect of the amendment was that all those candidates
like the respondents writ petitioners, who had a particular
standard of fitness at the time of initiation of selection process,
were rendered ineligible. This aspect was examined by the learned
Single Judge with reference to the settled legal position as
adumbrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions
including the decision in the case K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P.
& Ors [AIR 2008 SC 1470] wherein this legal position has been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the rules of
game has begun the rules cannot be altered. Proceeding on this
settled legal position, the writ petitions have been allowed by the
learned Single Judge.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the respondents having not challenged the terms and conditions of
the advertisement nor the rules, could not have maintained the
writ petitions, are liable to be rejected. The terms and conditions
of the advertisement did not state that a candidate, who is eligible
on the date of application could be held ineligible at a subsequent
stage of selection by change of rules. Since the right reserved to
amend the rules was exercised by the appellant in the manner so
as to hold the candidates ineligible long after the initiation of
process of selection, the same was challenged by the petitioners.
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB] (9 of 10) [SAW-889/2022]
The occasion arose to challenge the action of the appellant only
when the appellant sought to apply the amendment in the rules
mid-way the process of selection, which adversely affected the
respondents. Therefore, the objection to the maintainability of the
petitions on the ground of estoppel is unsustainable in law. The
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the
legal issue has been referred for consideration by Larger Bench,
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the settled legal
position that once the game has begun, the rules cannot be
changed could not be pressed into service.
10. The aforesaid argument is liable to be rejected at the
threshold in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh (supra),
wherein Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held
as under:
"35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders
by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that
the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is
either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition
relating thereto is pending. We have also come
across examples of High Courts refusing deference to
judgments of this Court on the score that a later
Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this
regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it
absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to
decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It
is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court,
to await an outcome of a reference or a review
petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a
High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating
that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate
Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting
judgments by Benches of equal strength of this
Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by
the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in
National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will
[2024:RJ-JD:9529-DB] (10 of 10) [SAW-889/2022]
do so with careful regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case before it."
11. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
12. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
180-a.asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
