Gajraj Singh Sengar vs The State Of M.P.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26433
1 WP-3789-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3789 of 2007
GAJRAJ SINGH SENGAR
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):-

"(i) That, The order dated 13.7.2007 Annexure P/1 passed by
the respondents may kindly be directed to be set aside.
(ii) That, The petitioner be held to be legally promoted as
Asstt. Engineer and all consequential benefits be directed to
be extended to him including the benefit of seniority and
consequential benefits of salary and other benefits including
the pensionary benefits on his retirement be also directed to
be extended.
(iii) That, The other relief doing justice including cost be
awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the impugned order
dated 13.07.2007, 34 Assistant Engineers (Civil) have been reverted to the post of
Sub-Engineers (Civil). It is submitted that before issuance of the impugned order,
the respondents had issued show-cause notices, pursuant to which the petitioner
and the other 33 persons had submitted their respective replies. The petitioner had
submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 29.01.2007, whereas some of
the other persons had submitted their replies on 07.03.2007. It is submitted that
without considering the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply submitted by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
12:44:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26433
2 WP-3789-2007
petitioner as well as the other 33 persons concerned, the respondents passed the

impugned order in an unreasoned and non-speaking manner and reverted the
petitioner. It is further submitted that by order dated 17.08.2007, the operation of
the impugned order was stayed. It is submitted that during the pendency of the
present petition, the petitioner has already retired from service. At the time of
filing of the petition, the petitioner was aged about 59 years and, presently, he is
aged about 78 years. It is further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private
Limited and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC
496.
3. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the
impugned order and submitted that before passing the order of reversion, an
opportunity of hearing was duly afforded to the petitioner. After considering the
reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order has rightly been passed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The relevant part of the impugned order dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure P-1)
is as under:-
4- ' ' 34
उपरो  कारण बताओ सूचना प  के संबंध म  संल न सूची म  दशा ये गये

अ यावेदन! म  "दये गये #बंदुओं पर #वचार "कया गया। इन सहायक यं #य!

(ारा उनके उपयं ी सेवा काल के पूव  काय भारत सेवा को जोड़कर व र-ता "दये

जाने को औिच 0यपूण बताया गया है तथा इस संबंध म  उ 3ह!ने मु 4यतः 6ी
,
एच.एस. नागराज त 0कालीन उपयं ी के 9करण को आधार माना है। रा ;य

शासन (ारा 6ी एच.एस. नागराज क < व र-ता एवं उस प र9े=य म  सहायक

यं ी के पद पर क < गई पदो 3नित को पूव  म  ह ? िनर @त कर "दया गया है ।
,
य A#प इस संबंध म  उनको पदावनित आदेश पर मान० उ Cच 3यायालय के

आदेश के कारण पालन नह ?ं हो सका ।
5- ( ) , 1961 -12
म. 9. िस #वल सेवा सेवा क < सामा 3य शत ! के िनयम के िनयम

म  यह 9ावधान है "क संवग  म  िनयु # हेतु संवग  क < व *र-ता चयन सूची के

आधार पर धा *रत होगी। तदानुसार संबंिधत उपयं ी Dजस ितिथ को िनयु  हुए
,
ह E उनक < िनयु # ितिथ से ह ? चयन सूची के आधार पर व *र-ता क < पा ता है।

इसके अलावा उनक < काय भा*रत या अ 3य पद ! पर क < गई सेवा को मा 3य नह ?ं

"कया जाता है।
6- 34
उपरो  D@थित से संल न सूची म  दशा ये गये त 0कालीन सहायक यं #य!

के अ यावेदन पूण  #वचारोपरा3त अमा 3य "कये जाते ह E ।
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
12:44:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26433
3 WP-3789-2007
7- 34
उ  प *र9े=य म  संल न सूची म  दशा ये गये त 0कालीन सहायक यं ी
( ) ( )
िस #वल का एत F (ारा उपयं ी िस #वल के पद पर 90यावितत "कया जाता

है। यह 90यावतन लोक सेवा आयोग क < सहमित के अधीन रहेगा ।

6. From perusal of the aforesaid impugned order, it is clear that the
authority, while passing an order affecting the service rights of the petitioner, was
required to consider the grounds and submissions raised by the petitioner in his
reply to the show-cause notice and to record cogent reasons for rejecting the same.
Although the impugned order refers to the representations submitted by the
concerned Assistant Engineers and records the general reasons for their reversion,
it does not disclose consideration of the specific grounds and submissions raised
by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice. Thus, the impugned order
dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure P-1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is not a
speaking order and is an unreasoned order. The authority was required to apply its
mind to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and to record valid and
justifiable reasons in support of its conclusion.
7. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an
authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with
due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance of
giving reasons by the authority in support of its decision. It has been held that the
face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative
authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know
how his case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order.
8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is relevant to quote. In
the said decision, it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that every
decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
12:44:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26433
4 WP-3789-2007
sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the

official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion.
9. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifies
that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any decision it chooses
to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must
be informed and impregnated with reasons. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is
quoted as under:-
“7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun v.
State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382. However,
we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte
blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious,
arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and
impregnated with reasons.

This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this
Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd
(1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651,
Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617,
B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC
548 and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517”.
10. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
Associates (supra) highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph
15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an
administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be
like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph 47 the Honb'le Supreme Court
summarized its discussion. The relevant sub-paragraphs of the said summary are
quoted as under:-
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also
appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even
administrative power.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
12:44:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26433
5 WP-3789-2007
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-
maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law
and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-
making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different
as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve
one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for
sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability
and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about
his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether
the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to
principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct.
A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated
with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making
not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR
553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001
EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the
European Convention of Human Rights which requires,

“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting
up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of “due process”.
11. In view of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case, the
impugned order dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the
petitioner, is hereby quashed.
12. The respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
12:44:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26433
6 WP-3789-2007
petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified

copy of this order. The petitioner was aged about 59 years at the time of filing of
the petition and is presently aged about 78 years, considering the age of the
petitioner, no liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate any further
proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the subject matter of the present
petition.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
AVI

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
12:44:20 PM