JUDGMENT

RAY, J.:— This application for special leave involves a very short but very important and substantial question of law namely whether a Court while hearing writ petitions is under an obligation to pass a speaking order - an order recording in brief at least the reasons which weighed with the Court in determining the salient questions raised by the parties to the action while dismissing or rejecting the writ petition in order to enable the parties to know the reasons for such order, more particularly when there is provision for appeal including appeal on special leave to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India to apprise the appellate Court of the reasons of the order in order to conform the basic principles of justice and fair play and as well as the rule of law which pervades our constitutional system and also in consonance with the principles of natural justice. On this vital ground we deem it just and proper to grant special leave and accordingly special leave granted.

2. The facts of the case in brief are inter alia that the petitioner a B. Sc. with 2nd Class honours, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1951 in the New English Institute Girls High School conducted and managed by a registered society named New Education Institute, the respondent No. 1. The petitioner was transferred in New High School in June 1953. The petitioner passed the Secondary Teachers Certificate Examination and he also passed the Diploma of Education Examination conducted by Basic Training Centre, Dhule. This diploma is considered as equivalent to Bachelor of Education Degree for the purpose of considering suitability for additional benefits. The petitioner was promoted as supervisor in the same school in 1961 and thereafter from June, 1968 he was working as Principal till his reversion by a resolution of the managing committee of the Institute dated October 28, 1973.

3. The petitioner challenged the said resolution of reversion in a suit being regular Civil Suit No. 755 of 1973. The said suit was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the said decree of dismissal in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1979. The appellate Court allowed the appeal on reversing the decree, of the trial Court holding inter alia that the order of reversion was illegal and bad and the petitioner was entitled to have all the benefits and emoluments as Principal of the said institution. The opposite party No. 1 preferred a Second Appeal No. 162 of 1981 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which is pending for hearing.

4. During the pendency of the said appeal the opposite party No. 1 commenced a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under the provisions of Cl. 77.3 of Secondary School Code. A notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner wherefrom it would appear that the said proceeding mainly related to mistakes in accounting in matters pertaining to the society and not relating to the school. The Enquiry, Committee on 7-4-1975 recommended the termination of the petitioners services. Against that recommendation the petitioner filed an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 by his order dated 27-12-1975 was of the opinion that the order terminating service of the petitioner was disproportionate to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee and directed that the petitioners service should not be terminated till the Civil Court would decide the suit. This order of respondent No. 4 was challenged by the management in an appeal filed to the Director of Education. Though it was submitted that the said appeal was not maintainable under the said Secondary School Code, the Joint Director of Education however after hearing allowed the said appeal by his order dated 6-9-1979 holding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were of account matters. He further held that the management was equally responsible inasmuch as it left financial matters pertaining to the management of the societ