Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in 1992 Patwari Selection Case: Paras Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 19 September 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can a court entertain a plea for separate consideration when the original judgment has been set aside and the matter has been remitted for fresh consideration, and a subsequent judgment has been passed? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the selection of Patwaris in Haryana, ultimately dismissing the appeals.

The core issue revolved around the selection and appointment of Patwaris initiated in 1992. The High Court had initially set aside the selection, but later took a pragmatic view, allowing the originally selected candidates to continue while providing an opportunity for others to participate in fresh selections. The appellants, who had challenged the initial High Court order, sought separate consideration, but the Supreme Court declined, upholding the subsequent High Court judgment.

The bench comprised Justices Kurian Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The judgment was authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.

Case Background

The case originates from a selection process for Patwaris in Haryana, which began in 1992. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana initially set aside the selection of 1248 Patwaris through a judgment dated 02.08.2005. However, the High Court allowed all parties to participate in a fresh selection with age relaxation. Some of the affected candidates approached the Supreme Court, which remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration through a judgment dated 28.09.2007 in Ram Avtar Patwari & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Following the Supreme Court’s direction, the High Court disposed of the petitions through a judgment dated 11.02.2009. This time, the High Court took a pragmatic approach, allowing the 1248 originally selected Patwaris to continue their service, while also providing an opportunity for others to participate in fresh selections. Two subsequent selections were conducted after this judgment. The appellants, who were also part of the initial selection process, sought separate consideration of their cases before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana initially set aside the selection of 1248 Patwaris through a judgment dated 02.08.2005. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court, which remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court, after the remand, disposed of the case through a judgment dated 11.02.2009, allowing the originally selected Patwaris to continue, while also providing an opportunity for others to participate in fresh selections. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court again, seeking separate consideration of their cases, which was ultimately dismissed.

Legal Framework

There are no specific legal provisions that were discussed in the judgment.

Arguments

The appellants argued that since they had come before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgment dated 02.08.2005, their cases should be considered separately. They contended that the subsequent judgment of the High Court dated 11.02.2009 should not affect their claim for separate consideration.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues in this judgment. However, the core issue was whether the appellants’ cases should be considered separately, despite the High Court’s subsequent judgment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

Ram Avtar Patwari & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 94: The Supreme Court had remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court had subsequently disposed of the cases afresh by judgment dated 11.02.2009.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the original judgment of the High Court, which the appellants had challenged, was set aside by the Supreme Court itself. The High Court had then taken a pragmatic view by allowing the originally selected candidates to continue while also providing opportunities for fresh selections. The Court noted that there was no challenge to the subsequent judgment of the High Court, and thus, the appellants’ plea for separate consideration was not maintainable. The Court aimed to bring the long-standing litigation to an end, considering the pragmatic approach taken by the High Court.

The Court observed, “The Judgment dated 02.08.2005 has been upset by the Judgment of this Court dated 28.09.2007 in Ram Avtar Patwari (supra).”

The Court further noted, “The High Court has, pursuant to the remand, disposed of the cases afresh by Judgment dated 11.02.2009. There is no challenge to that Judgment.”

The Court concluded, “having regard to the fact that this is an issue pertaining to the selection of Patwaris initiated in the year 1992, we are of the view that the whole litigation should be given a quietus, having regard to the pragmatic view taken by the High Court in the Judgment dated 11.02.2009.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s pragmatic approach.
• The Court emphasized the need to bring long-standing litigation to an end.
• The appellants’ plea for separate consideration was rejected, as the original judgment they challenged had been set aside, and a subsequent judgment had been passed.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that once a judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration, the subsequent judgment passed by the lower court is binding, and a plea for separate consideration of the case is not maintainable, especially when there is no challenge to the subsequent judgment. This case reinforces the principle of finality in litigation and the importance of adhering to the judgments passed by the courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s decision to allow the originally selected Patwaris to continue while providing opportunities for fresh selections. The Court aimed to bring the long-standing litigation to an end, emphasizing the importance of finality in legal proceedings.