Non-speaking administrative orders revoking service status without addressing specific issues are legally unsustainable.

The petitioners originally held the post of Sahayak Gram Panchayat Adhikari, which was declared a dying cadre and re-classified into three categories, including Varishth Aantrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan Adhikari.

On 27.08.2009, the petitioners were appointed to this senior post.

Subsequently, on 15.07.2010, the respondents reduced the petitioners' rank and pay.

This reduction was challenged in a first round of litigation (WPS No. 6182/2010), where the High Court, on 12.07.2018, quashed the reduction for violating principles of natural justice, while reserving the State's right to initiate fresh proceedings after providing a hearing.

Following this, the respondents issued a notice and passed the impugned order on 10.12.2019, which revoked the petitioners' 2009 appointment order rather than adjudicating the status and pay issues.

1. Whether the respondent authority was justified in revoking the 2009 appointment order without specifically deciding the issue of reduction of rank and pay as directed in the previous round of litigation.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 is sustainable as a speaking order under the law.

The court applied the fundamental principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement of providing an effective opportunity of hearing before passing orders that adversely affect a government servant's status or pay.

It further relied on the administrative law doctrine requiring authorities to pass "speaking orders," which necessitate a reasoned application of mind to the specific legal and factual issues in dispute.

The Court observed that although the previous judicial order in WPS No. 6182/2010 granted the State liberty to initiate fresh proceedings regarding the petitioners' status, such proceedings were required to be substantive and fair.

The Court found that the respondents merely issued a notice and summarily revoked the 2009 appointment order without actually considering or deciding the core question of whether the petitioners were entitled to the rank and pay of Varishth Aantrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan Adhikari.

The Court characterized the impugned order as "non-speaking" because it failed to address the specific grievances or the legal status of the petitioners' posts, thereby failing to satisfy the requirements of a quasi-judicial determination.

The Court remitted the matter to Respondent No. 2 with a direction to decide the question of the petitioners' status and pay scale within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

The Court emphasized that this fresh decision must be reached in accordance with the law after affording the petitioners a proper opportunity of hearing.