Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2905 OF 2022
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ..Appellant (S)
Versus
Mayan Pal Singh Verma ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in WPSB No. 9/2022, by which
the High Court has disposed of the said writ petition
without deciding the writ petition on merits and has
directed the Department to comply with the order passed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.04.19
16:53:43 IST
Reason:
1
by the Tribunal which was under challenge before it, the
State has preferred the present appeal.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the
Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun (for short
“Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.104/DB/2009, by which
the Tribunal directed the Department to ignore the un
communicated “Uttam” entries in the ACRs while
considering the case of the original applicant – private
respondent herein for his promotion to the post of the
Chief Engineer Level2 by the reviewed ACP, the State of
Uttarakhand had preferred the writ petition before the
High Court. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of
the High Court has disposed of the said writ petition
without deciding the writ petition on merits and without
expressing anything on the legality and validity of the
order passed by the Tribunal and has directed the State to
comply with the order passed by the Tribunal by observing
th
that though Tribunal had passed an order on 15
September, 2021, no review ACP has been constituted.
There is no discussion at all by the High Court on the
2
merits of the order passed by the Tribunal, which was
under challenge before it. The impugned order reads as
under:
“The matter is taken up through virtual hearing.
Heard Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant.
In this case, the petitioner has assailed the order
passed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal,
Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 104/DB/2009
directing the opposite party to ignore the un
communicated ''Uttam” entries in the ACRs while
considering the case of the private respondent for his
promotion to the post of the Chief Engineer level2 by
the reviewed ACP. It is further directed that the
respondentDepartment may hold the reviewed ACP
within three months from the date representation of
the certified copy of this order. This Order has been
th
passed on 15 September, 2021 till then no review
ACP has been constituted. Let that order passed by
the Tribunal be complied within 21 days from today.
With such observation, the writ application is
disposed of.”
2.1 From the writ petition produced on record, it appears
that the order passed by the Tribunal was challenged on
a number of grounds. None of the grounds raised in the
writ petition has been dealt with and/or considered by
the High Court on merits. There is no discussion at all on
any of the grounds raised in the writ petition. The
Division Bench of the High Court has disposed of the writ
3
petition in a most cavalier and cursory manner, which is
unsustainable. The High Court has disposed of the writ
petition without deciding the writ petition on merits and
has directed the Department to comply with the order
passed by the Tribunal solely by observing that the order
th
has been passed on 15 September, 2021 and till date no
review ACP has been constituted. However, the High
Court ought to have noted that the order passed by the
Tribunal was under challenge before it and therefore, the
High Court was required to decide and dispose of the writ
petition on merits and consider the legality and
correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal.
2.2 The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and
disposed of the writ petition without deciding the writ
petition on merits cannot be appreciated at all. When a
number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ
petition, there was the duty cast upon the High Court to
deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned
order. In the recent decision in the case of
Vishal Ashwin
Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
4
Circle 25(3) & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2200/2022), it was
observed by this Court that when the Constitution
confers on the High Courts the power to give relief, it
becomes the duty of the High Courts to give such relief in
appropriate cases and the High Courts would be failing to
perform its duty if relief is refused without adequate
reasons. It is further observed that in this case, the High
Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India was required to have independently
considered the legality and validity of the order passed by
the Tribunal which was under challenge before it. Neither
any submission on merits is recorded nor is there any
discussion on the merits of the matter on the order
passed by the Tribunal. There is no application of mind
at all by the High Court on merits of the order passed by
the Tribunal. It can be seen that the High Court has
failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it while
exercising the powers under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India.
5
2.3 While emphasising the necessity to pass a reasoned
order, in the case of
Central Board of Trustees Vs.
Indore Composite Private Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443,
it was observed and held by this Court that the courts
need to pass a reasoned order in every case which must
contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the
parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the
submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles
applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in
support of the findings on all the issues arising in the
case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in
support of its conclusion. It was further observed in the
said decision that an order bereft of reasoning causes
prejudice to the parties because it deprives them to know
the reasons as to why one party has won and other has
lost.
2.4 In a recent decision in the case of
Union Public Service
Commission Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors.,
(2021) 4 SCC 516 , while emphasising that reasons ought
to be given by the High Court while exercising powers
6
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it was
observed and held by this Court that the reasons
constitute the soul of judicial decision and how Judges
communicate in their judgment is a defining
characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice
brings legitimacy to the judiciary. It is further observed
that though statistics of disposal of cases is important, of
a higher value, is the intrinsic content and of a quality
judgment. It is further observed that in exercise of powers
under Article 226 the courts require to independently
consider the issues involved.
3. Applying the law laid by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the
manner in which the High Court has disposed of the writ
petition, in the interest of sobriety, we may only note that
the order is bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were
urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been
examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear
finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the
relevant documents.
7
4. Since we cannot countenance the manner in which the
order has been passed by the High Court which has
compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for
deciding the writ petition afresh on merits, we do so in
light of the aforesaid observations.
5. In light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the present
appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the
High Court and remand the matter to the Division Bench
of the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh in
accordance with law, keeping in view our observations
made supra. We, however, make it clear that we have
refrained from making any observation on the merits of
the controversy, having formed an opinion to remand the
case to the High Court only for the reasons mentioned
above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the writ
petition, bearing in mind our observations made above
and strictly in accordance with law.
With the above directions, the present appeal is
accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
8
The matter is remanded to the High Court as aforesaid.
No costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
April 19, 2022.
9