Upholding Existing Precedent in Public Employment Law as a Binding Authority
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CW/26780/2018 of BABLU SINGH CONSTABLE (DRIVER) NO 897, SON OF RATAN SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY |
| CNR | RJHC021157852018 |
| Date of Registration | 05-12-2018 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. |
| Court | High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Public Employment |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petitioners conceded that the controversy on service rule interpretation was no longer res integra and had been conclusively resolved by a coordinate bench in Amar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3873/2019, decided 20.12.2023). In view of the principle of judicial consistency and the binding effect of coordinate bench decisions on the same High Court, this petition must be disposed of in identical terms. There being no substantive dispute beyond the scope of the earlier judgment, the writ petition stands disposed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Amar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3873/2019 (20.12.2023) |
| Citations | [2025:RJ-JP:33428] |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Rajasthan |
| Follows | Amar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3873/2019, 20.12.2023) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Coordinate bench decisions of the High Court of Rajasthan on identical service rule issues are binding on subsequent benches and petitions.
- Writ petitions raising the same point of law once conclusively decided must be disposed of without re-opening the controversy.
- Counsel may invoke this judgment to streamline disposal of group-litigation challenges to service rules where an earlier coordinate bench has ruled.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioners and respondents agreed the dispute was no longer res integra.
- The court identified Amar Singh & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3873/2019) as a binding coordinate bench precedent.
- Emphasized principle of judicial consistency: coordinate benches of the same High Court bind each other.
- Held that, in the absence of any distinguishable fact or law, disposal must mirror the earlier judgment.
- Directed that the writ petition be disposed of on the same terms as in Amar Singh & Ors.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- The controversy on service rule interpretation has been conclusively resolved by a coordinate bench.
- This petition should be disposed of in identical terms to Amar Singh & Ors.
Respondents
- No objection to disposal in terms of the earlier coordinate bench decision.
Factual Background
Petitioners—several constables (drivers) serving in the CID(IB)–PHQ, Jaipur—challenged an order or rule in a writ petition registered in December 2018. During proceedings, learned counsel for both sides submitted that a coordinate bench at Jodhpur (Amar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided 20.12.2023) had already resolved the same legal controversy. They sought disposal of the present petition in identical terms.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- [2025:RJ-JP:33428]
- Amar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3873/2019 (20.12.2023)