Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Jail Warders' Petitions, Upholds 'Approbate and Reprobate' Doctrine
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a set of writ petitions filed by 28 jail warders who were promoted to head warders. The court held that the legal doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" barred their challenge, emphasizing that litigants cannot accept benefits under a statutory scheme and later attack it when it becomes disadvantageous.
Court's Firm Stance on Legal Consistency
A division bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Ravi Chirania, in an order dated February 17, stated unequivocally: "A litigant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold by first accepting the benefits under the new Rules and subsequently assailing the same when it ceases to be advantageous." This principle underscores the court's commitment to preventing individuals from selectively benefiting from legal frameworks only to contest them later.
Background of the Case
The petitioners were initially appointed as warders under the Rajasthan Jails Subordinate Service Rules of 1976. Following the repeal of these rules, the Rajasthan Jails Subordinate Service Rules of 1998 came into effect. The state government later promoted the petitioners to the position of head warder under this new 1998 framework.
The division bench highlighted that the petitioners consciously exercised their option under Rule 35 of the 1998 Rules. They accepted the circle-wise seniority list dated September 8, 2011, and subsequently received promotions in 2014 under these same rules. Given these actions, the court found it impermissible for them to now question the validity of the rules from which they had derived clear benefits.
Petitioners' Arguments and Court's Rejection
The petitioners contended that the 1998 Rules illegally altered promotion eligibility criteria and changed the basis for seniority preparation. However, the court firmly rejected this argument, stating that it was not acceptable for the petitioners to accept promotions under the 1998 Rules and later seek to revert to the repealed 1976 Rules for further advancement.
This ruling reinforces a key legal tenet: individuals must maintain consistency in their legal positions and cannot exploit statutory schemes for personal gain only to challenge them when circumstances change. The decision serves as a precedent for similar cases involving promotions and rule changes in government services.
