Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 892
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Surya Prakash Pathak - Appellant
Versus
State of MP and others - Respondent
Writ Petition No.3207-2013
Decided On : 29-04-2014
For the Petitioner:Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1 & 2:Smt. Sangita Pachauri, Dy.Govt. Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3:Shri Mahesh Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.4:Shri B.S.Dhakad, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for administrative decisions to be supported by clear and cogent reasons, in line with the principles of natural justice and due process.
Headnote:
Seniority Dispute - Promotion - Madhya Pradesh Shiksha Sanhita 2011, Madhya Pradesh Nagriya Nikay Adhyapak Samverg (Niyojan Avam Sewa Ki Sharten) Niyam, 2008 - Article 226
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order setting aside his promotion and remitting the matter back to the Municipal Council. The dispute arose from a seniority list and the application of rules regarding promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order setting aside the promotion lacked reasoning and did not discuss the applicability of relevant rules. It emphasized the need for reasons in administrative decisions and set aside the order, remitting the matter back for a fresh decision.
Issues: The issues involved the seniority dispute, promotion order, and the application of Madhya Pradesh Shiksha Sanhita 2011 and Madhya Pradesh Nagriya Nikay Adhyapak Samverg (Niyojan Avam Sewa Ki Sharten) Niyam, 2008.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons in administrative decisions and the need for clear, cogent, and succinct reasoning to support conclusions. It set aside the order due to the lack of reasoning and non-application of mind.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed without expressing any opinion on merits, and the matter was remitted back to the Collector for a fresh decision.
Judgment:
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 29.4.2013 passed by the Collector in Case No.38/2012-13/Appeal. By this order, the promotion order of the petitioner was set aside and matter was remitted back to the Municipal Council to reconsider the matter in accordance with rules.
2. Assailing this order, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.4 herein were admittedly appointed by the same order and on the same day. They joined services as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II on the same day. Thereafter they were absorbed as Adhyapak. A seniority list (Annexure P/5) showing position as on 1.4.2011 was prepared, wherein the petitioner is shown at No.3 and respondent No.4 is at No.5. It is urged that this seniority list was not challenged by anybody at any point of time and, therefore, it has attained finality. The petitioner's case was considered for promotion on the post of Senior Teacher and he was promoted by order dated 4.1.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner's subject is English whereas respondent No.4 belongs to the subject of Sanskrit and, therefore, she has no right on a post which is occupied by petitioner in the stream of English. In addition, it is contended that as per the appeal, preferred by respondent No.4 (Annexure P/7) the singular ground canvassed was that she is senior by age and, therefore, she should secure a march in the matter of seniority over and above the petitioner. By drawing attention on the Circular dated 16.8.2009 (Page 43), it is contended that the seniority in teacher's cadre is to be counted as per the appointment order and merit position/selection position mentioned in the appointment order.
3. Reverting back to the order dated 7.9.1992, it is contended that the petitioner's name is at No.5 and name of respondent No.4 is at No.8 and, therefore, the petitioner was rightly held senior. It is contended that the DPC which was constituted in the case of the petitioner was strictly in consonance with Schedule IV of the Gazette Notification dated 17.9.2008 (Annexure R-4/4). It is submitted that the Collector without assigning any reason has disturbed the promotion order, which is bad in law.
4. The prayer is opposed by Shri Mahesh Goyal and Shri B.S.Dhakad. It is common ground taken by the respondents that the Collector has merely remanded the matter back before the authority and the authority will proceed in accordance with law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent has disturbed the order by applying “Madhya Pradesh Shiksha Sanhita 2011”. Apart from this, a conclusion is drawn that the DPC was not conducted as per “Madhya Pradesh Nagriya Nikay Adhyapak Samverg (Niyojan Avam Sewa Ki Sharten) Niyam, 2008” and it was conducted as per the notification dated 17.9.2008. I find force in the argument of Shri Shrivastava that no reasons are assigned for arriving to this conclusion. There is no discussion as to how Madhya Pradesh Shiksha Sanhita can be made applicable on an employee of a 'local body'.
7. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons conclusion cannot be permitted to stand. The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, emphasized the need for assigning reasons in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative decision.
Relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-
“(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on an
