State of Uttarakhand & Anr. vs Mayan Pal Singh Verma

State of Uttarakhand & Anr. vs Mayan Pal Singh Verma - Supreme Court Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

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

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 uncommunicated   “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   15th

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   uncommunicated   ''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