The State Of Uttarakhand vs Mayan Pal Singh Verma

State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ..Appellant (S)

Versus

Mayan Pal Singh Verma ..Respondent (S)

JUDGMENT

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

Signature Not Verified directed the Department to comply with the order passed 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

that though Tribunal had passed an order on 15 th

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 passed on 15th 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

has been passed on 15th 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