Division Bench appeal against a Single Judge order recalling an earlier judgment in a teacher recruitment matter. Applying its prior decision in Suresh Kumar Jat holding that suo motu review without hearing affected appointees was impermissible, the Bench disposed of the appeal in the same terms.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:48-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 34/2022
Versus
(2 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:48-DB]
[SAW-34/2022]
District Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
[2024:RJ-JD:48-DB]
[SAW-34/2022]
(3 of 4)
Order
02/01/2024
following manner:-
“Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the learned Single Judge could not have passed the impugned order dated 25.02.2021. Though multiple issues concerning the ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge in the recall or review order dated 25.02.2021 arise, we would be well advised not to elaborate these issues since the petition of Rakesh Godara is pending before the learned Single Judge in which these legal issues would and need to be decided. The impugned order dated 25.02.2021, however, would have to be set aside for the simple reason that the learned Single Judge had exercised extraordinary power of suo moto review of his own order without their being any substantive proceedings instituted by any of the persons, who claimed to be aggrieved by the implementation of the order by the Government. The petitioner Rakesh Godara had challenged the select list drawn by the Government on the basis of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2020. It is still open to the learned Single Judge to test the legality of the Government order in legal terms in such proceedings having regard to the judgment in case of Kuldeep Kumar and others. However, on the ground that the list drawn by the Government was on account of some lack of clarity in the said order dated 20.07.2020, which needed to be clarified or the directions issued needed to be reviewed, the suo moto power to recall or review without full hearing of all issues and all parties concerned, ought not to have been exercised. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in order to demonstrate that this objection of necessary parties not being present before the Court was raised more than once. This objection was rejected on the
(4 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:48-DB]
[SAW-34/2022]
ground that none of the counsel could satisfy the Court that the direction contained in para51 of the judgment dated 20.07.2020, if read in isolation, is within the precincts of the controversy and otherwise in conformity with law. Whatever be the reasons and grounds for review or recall of the earlier order, when it was pointed out by the counsel appearing before the learned Single Judge that any such exercise would result in adversely affecting several persons, who by now have already been appointed, such persons or at least some of them ought to have been heard before unsettling the position arising out of the earlier judgment. Even otherwise, the question as to how the vacancies remained unfilled on account of non-joining of the selected candidates versus rejection of candidature upon document verification/nonappearance of the candidates for document verification, was not discussed in the original judgment. This issue required full consideration and could not have been decided by exercising suo moto powers of review without full participation from all persons concerned. On these grounds, we are inclined to reverse the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. While so doing, it is further provided that whatever the issues the petitioners Rakesh Godara and other shave raised in connection with the select list prepared by the State Government in furtherance of the order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, would be examined on the basis of the materials on record in their pending petition/s.
With these observations and directions, the impugned order is reversed. The appeals are disposed of. Connected applications are also disposed of.”
appeal also.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
6-Sudheer/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge's recall/review order dated 25.02.2021 could stand in light of the Division Bench decision in Suresh Kumar Jat?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Suresh Kumar Jat and othersApplied¶1
State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Suresh Kumar Jat and others (Spl. Appl. Writ No. 357/2021 dated 22.11.2021)
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department
The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan
The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner
Om Prakash S/o Shri Rajpal
Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal
Satveer S/o Shri Prabhu Ram
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Rajendra Prakash Soni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
