STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. versus MAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA on 19 April 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugnedorderpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand atNainital in WPSB No. 9/2022, by which the High Court has disposed ofthe said writ petition without deciding the writ petition on merits and hasGdirected the Department to comply with the order passed by the Tribunalwhich was under challenge before it, the State has preferred the presentappeal.

2. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the UttarakhandPublic Service Tribunal, Dehradun (for short “Tribunal”) in Claim PetitionH

No.104/DB/2009, by which the Tribunal directed the Department to ignorethe un-communicated “Uttam” entries in the ACRs while consideringthe case of the original applicant – private respondent herein for hispromotion to the post of the Chief Engineer Level-2 by the reviewedACP, the State of Uttarakhand had preferred the writ petition before theHigh Court. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the HighCourt has disposed of the said writ petition without deciding the writpetition on merits and without expressing anything on the legality andvalidity of the order passed by the Tribunal and has directed the State tocomply with the order passed by the Tribunal by observing that thoughTribunal had passed an order on 15[th] September, 2021, no review ACPhas been constituted. There is no discussion at all by the High Court onthe merits of the order passed by the Tribunal, which was under challengebefore it. The impugned order reads as under: - “The matter is taken up through virtual hearing.

Heard Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant.

In this case, the petitioner has assailed the order passed bythe Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun in ClaimPetition No. 104/DB/2009 directing the opposite party to ignorethe un-communicated ‘’Uttam” entries in the ACRs whileconsidering the case of the private respondent for his promotionto the post of the Chief Engineer level-2 by the reviewed ACP. Itis further directed that the respondent-Department may hold thereviewed ACP within three months from the date representationof the certified copy of this order. This Order has been passed on15[th]September, 2021 till then no review ACP has been constituted.Let that order passed by the Tribunal be complied within 21 daysfrom today.

With such observation, thewrit application is disposed of.”

2.1 From the writ petition produced on record, it appears that theorder passed by the Tribunal was challenged on a number of grounds.None of the grounds raised in the writ petition has beendealt with and/orconsidered by the High Court on merits. There is no discussion at all onany of the grounds raised in the writ petition. The Division Bench of theHigh Court has disposed of the writ petition in a most cavalier and cursorymanner, which is unsustainable. The High Court has disposed of the writ A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apetition without deciding the writ petition on merits and has directed theDepartment to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal solely byobserving that the order has been passed on 15[th] September, 2021 andtill date no review ACP has been constituted. However, the High Courtought to have noted that the order passed by the Tribunal was underchallenge before it and therefore, the High Court was required to decideBand dispose of the writ petition on merits and consider the legality andcorrectness of the order passed by the Tribunal.

2.2 The manner in which the High Court has dealt with anddisposedof the writ petitionwithout deciding the writ petition on meritscannot be appreciated at all. When a number of issues/grounds wereCraised in the writ petition, there was the duty cast upon the High Court todeal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. In the recentdecision in the case of Vishal Ashwin Patel Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) & Ors. (Civil AppealNo. 2200/2022), it was observed by this Court that when the Constitution

Dconfers on the High Courts the power to give relief, it becomes the dutyof the High Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the HighCourts would be failing to perform its duty if relief is refused withoutadequate reasons. It is further observed that in this case, the High Courtin exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wasrequired to have independently considered the legality and validity of theEorder passed by the Tribunal which was under challenge before it. Neitherany submission on merits is recorded nor is there any discussion on themerits of the matter on the order passed by the Tribunal. There is noapplication of mind at all by the High Court on merits of the order passedby the Tribunal. It can be seen that the High Court has failed to exerciseFits jurisdiction vested in it while exercising the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2.3 While emphasising the necessity to pass a reasoned order, inthe case of Central Board of Trustees Vs. Indore CompositePrivate Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443, it was observed and held by this Court thatthe courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case whichGmust contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties tothe lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties,the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons insupport of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged bythe learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. It wasHfurther observed in the said decision that an order bereft of reasoning causes prejudice to the parties because it deprives them to know thereasons as to why one party has won and other has lost.

2.4 In a recent decision in the case of Union Public ServiceCommission Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC516, while emphasising that reasons ought to be given by the High Courtwhile exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, itwas observed and held by this Court that the reasons constitute the soulof judicial decision and how Judges communicate in their judgment is adefining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice bringslegitimacy to the judiciary. It is further observed that though statistics ofdisposal of cases is important, ofa higher value,is the intrinsic contentand of a quality judgment. It is further observedthat in exercise of powersunder Article 226 the courts require to independently consider the issuesinvolved.

3. Applying the law laid by this Court in the aforesaid decisions tothe facts of the case on hand and the manner in which the High Courthas disposed of the writ petition, in the interest ofsobriety, we may onlynote that the order is bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raisedby the parties which ought to have been examined by the HighCourt in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recordedupon analysing the relevant documents.

4. Since we cannot countenance the manner in which the orderhas been passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remandthe matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh onmerits, we do so in light of the aforesaid observations.

5. In light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the present appealand set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and remandthe matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writpetition afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view our observationsmade supra. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained frommaking any observation on the merits of the controversy, having formedan opinion to remand the case to the High Court only for the reasonsmentioned above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the writpetition, bearing in mind our observations made above and strictly inaccordance with law. With the above directions, the present appeal isaccordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter isremanded to the High Court as aforesaid. No costs.

Matter remanded back.

A

B

C

D

E

F