Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MOHINDER SINGH AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/09/1991
BENCH:
RAY, B.C. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, B.C. (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 SCR (3) 859 1991 SCC Supl. (2) 207
JT 1991 (3) 603 1991 SCALE (2)492
ACT:
Constitution of India: Articles 136, 226--Writ petition
dismissed by a non-speaking order--Whether reasons to be
given.
Service Law: Haryana Police--Inspectors--Out of turn
promotion as Deputy Superintendents--Promotion order not
mentioning reasons for--Validity of.
HEADNOTE:
Respondents no. 3 and 4, who were junior to the appel-
lants as Inspectors of Police in the State of Haryana, were
given out of turn promotions as Deputy Superintendents of
police earlier than the appellants. The Appellants chal-
lenged the said promotion order in a writ petition which was
dismissed by the High Court by a non-speaking order. Ag-
grieved, the appellants filed the appeal by special leave to
this Court.
Disposing of the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. The order dismissing the writ petition must be
a speaking one in order to enable the person affected to
know what were the reasons which weighed with the High Court
in dismissing it. The High Court should not pass a laconic
order. [860G]
2. In the instant case, in the order of promotion there
was not a single whisper why the said out of turn promotion
was given. [860E]
3. The order of the High Court is fit to be set aside,
and the case be sent back on remand to the High Court to
hear the writ petition after giving an opportunity to the
parties and recording a reasoned speaking order on merits.
[861A]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3471 of
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.1990 Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 12328 of 1990.
860
G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.
K.C. Bajaj, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary and Y.K. Jain for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Special leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and
also considered the order passed by the High Court. Admit-
tedly, these two appellants were appointed much earlier to
the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the post of
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Their appointment being
on 30.3.71 and 24.4.71 whereas the appointment of respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 were on 18.2.83. They were promoted in 1983 as
Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. On 1.1.89 respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 and appellant Nos.1 and 2 were promoted as
Inspectors of Police and a composite Seniority List of
appellants, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other similarly
appointed persons was issued by respondent No. 1 in which
appellant No- 1 was shown at serial No. 33, appellant No. 2
at serial No. 34 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were at
serial numbers 46 and 47 respectively. On 16.10.89 by order
of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State of Haryana and Director
General of Police respondent No. 3 was promoted out of turn
as Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 23.10.89 respondent
No. 4 was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, out
of turn. It is rather curious that not a single whisper was
there in the order of promotion why the said, out of turn,
promotion was given. It was tried to be contended by learned
counsels on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that because
of their gallantry this out of turn promotion was given.
However, there is no whisper about this in the letters
giving promotion. The appellants, on the other hand, were
promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police as on 11.1.90.
While filing the Writ Petition before the High Court, the
appellants stated that they came to know of this out of turn
promotion sometime on 3.8.90.
We have considered the order of the High Court. It is
really a matter of great regret that inspite of several
pronouncements of this Court that the order dismissing the
writ petition must be a speaking order in order to enable
the persons affected to know what were the reasons which
weighed with the High Court in dismissing the writ petition.
This Court has observed several times that the High Court
should not pass laconic order. In that view of the matter,
we think it
861
just, proper and fair to set aside the order of the High
Court and send the case back on remand to the High Court to
hear out the writ petition after giving opportunity to
parties and recording a reasoned speaking order on merits.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of-
R.P. Appeal disposed
of.
862