It is the ratio decidendi of a judgment and not the final order in the judgment, which forms a precedent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.1961 of 2019

[ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31539 of 2012 ]

SANJAY K. DIXIT AND OTHERS .... Appellants

Versus

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

10. The question that then arises is whether the High

Court could have granted such a relief after holding that

the relaxation of the Rule could not have been made.

The final relief in a case can be different from the

ratio

decidendi. It was held in

Sanjay Singh & Anr. v.

U.P.

2 (2009) 3 SCC 227 40

Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr.3 as

follows:

10. ... .... Broadly speaking, every judgment of

superior courts has three segments, namely, (i)

the facts and the point at issue; (ii) the

reasons for the decision; and (iii) the final order

containing the decision. The reasons for the

decision or the ratio decidendi is not the final

order containing the decision. In fact, in a

judgment of this Court, though the ratio

decidendi may point to a particular result, the

decision (final order relating to relief) may be

different and not a natural consequence of the

ratio decidendi of the judgment. This may

happen either on account of any subsequent

event or the need to mould the relief to do

complete justice in the matter. It is the ratio

decidendi of a judgment and not the final order

in the judgment, which forms a precedent. ..

11. In view of the above, the conclusion of the High

Court in favour of those candidates who submitted their

certificate before 28th March, 2012 is correct and need not

be interfered with.