http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MOHINDER SINGH AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/09/1991

BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (3) 859        1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 207  JT 1991 (3)   603        1991 SCALE  (2)492

ACT:     Constitution of India: Articles 136, 226--Writ  petition dismissed  by  a non-speaking order--Whether reasons  to  be given.     Service  Law:  Haryana Police--Inspectors--Out  of  turn promotion  as  Deputy Superintendents--Promotion  order  not mentioning reasons for--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     Respondents  no. 3 and 4, who were junior to the  appel- lants as Inspectors of Police in the State of Haryana,  were given  out of turn promotions as Deputy  Superintendents  of police  earlier  than the appellants. The  Appellants  chal- lenged the said promotion order in a writ petition which was dismissed  by  the High Court by a non-speaking  order.  Ag- grieved, the appellants filed the appeal by special leave to this Court. Disposing of the appeal, this Court,     HELD: 1. The order dismissing the writ petition must  be a  speaking  one in order to enable the person  affected  to know what were the reasons which weighed with the High Court in  dismissing it. The High Court should not pass a  laconic order. [860G]     2. In the instant case, in the order of promotion  there was not a single whisper why the said out of turn  promotion was given. [860E]     3.  The order of the High Court is fit to be set  aside, and  the  case be sent back on remand to the High  Court  to hear  the writ petition after giving an opportunity  to  the parties  and recording a reasoned speaking order on  merits. [861A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3471  of 1991.     From  the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.1990 Punjab  and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 12328 of 1990. 860 G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.     K.C.  Bajaj, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary and Y.K. Jain  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered: Special leave granted.     We  have heard learned counsel for both the parties  and also  considered the order passed by the High Court.  Admit- tedly,  these two appellants were appointed much earlier  to the  appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the  post  of Assistant  Sub-Inspector of Police. Their appointment  being on 30.3.71 and 24.4.71 whereas the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were on 18.2.83. They were promoted in 1983  as Assistant  Sub-Inspectors  of Police. On  1.1.89  respondent Nos.  3  and 4 and appellant Nos.1 and 2  were  promoted  as Inspectors  of  Police  and a composite  Seniority  List  of appellants,  respondent  Nos. 3 and 4  and  other  similarly appointed  persons was issued by respondent No. 1  in  which appellant No- 1 was shown at serial No. 33, appellant No.  2 at  serial  No. 34 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4  were  at serial numbers 46 and 47 respectively. On 16.10.89 by  order of  respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State of Haryana  and  Director General of Police respondent No. 3 was promoted out of  turn as  Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 23.10.89  respondent No.  4 was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police,  out of turn. It is rather curious that not a single whisper  was there  in the order of promotion why the said, out of  turn, promotion was given. It was tried to be contended by learned counsels  on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that  because of  their  gallantry this out of turn promotion  was  given. However,  there  is  no whisper about this  in  the  letters giving  promotion. The appellants, on the other  hand,  were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police as on  11.1.90. While  filing the Writ Petition before the High  Court,  the appellants stated that they came to know of this out of turn promotion sometime on 3.8.90.     We  have considered the order of the High Court.  It  is really  a  matter of great regret that  inspite  of  several pronouncements  of this Court that the order dismissing  the writ  petition must be a speaking order in order  to  enable the  persons  affected to know what were the  reasons  which weighed with the High Court in dismissing the writ petition. This  Court has observed several times that the  High  Court should  not pass laconic order. In that view of the  matter, we think it 861 just,  proper  and fair to set aside the order of  the  High Court and send the case back on remand to the High Court  to hear  out  the  writ petition after  giving  opportunity  to parties and recording a reasoned speaking order on merits. The appeal is accordingly disposed of- R.P.                                        Appeal  disposed of. 862