Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 470 of 2018 Appellant :- Finance Controller,Basic Shiksha Parishad Respondent :- Bal Mukund Sharma Counsel for Appellant :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Muni Raj Goswami
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is barred by limitation from 38 days. Ignoring the same we have examined the merits of the case.
This appeal is before us to examine the correctness of the judgment dated 17.5.2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ-A No. 1869 of 2003. Learned single Bench under the order impugned while accepting the petition for writ quashed the order dated 18.12.2002 passed by the Finance Controller, Basic Education Council, Allahabad, U.P. cancelling the order dated 6.6.2002.
Brief facts of the case are that under an order dated 6.6.2002 services of the petitioner respondent, a Group D employee, were regularized in the pay-scale of Rs. 2550-50-2660-60-3200 against a vacant post of Ardali. Appellant respondent despite regularization of services did not fix pay of the petitioner respondent in the pay-scale referred above, therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ bearing number 49703 of 2002. In the petition aforesaid, a direction was given to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner respondent. The appellant respondent Finance Controller under the order dated 18.12.2002 instead of making any order for fixation of the petitioner respondent's pay in the pay-scale applicable for Group D services decide to withdraw the order dated 6.6.2002. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2002 a petition for writ was filed by the petitioner respondent that came to be accepted under the judgment impugned.
The arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant respondent is that the regularization of the petitioner respondent was erroneous, therefore, the same was withdrawn. It is also stated that the regularization could have been made only if the petitioner respondent would have been in service from the year 1991 but as a matter of fact he was employed in the year 1996 only.
Per contra as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner respondent, learned counsel for the appellant respondent is not correct and petitioner respondent was entitled to be considered for regularization in service and was rightly considered and given regularized status.
Be that as it may learned single Bench accepted the petition for writ on the count that in light of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 49703 of 2002 the appellant respondent was supposed to pass a reasoned order but the withdrawal of regularization has been made without assigning any reason. On going through the record, we find that the order dated 18.12.2002 does not contain any reason. The Finance Controller just by referring the direction given by a single Bench of this Court in earlier petition for writ decided to cancel the order dated 6.6.2002. The order, as such, is apparently bad. The reasons supplied to substantiated the decision taken by way of availing instructions cannot be taken into consideration in light of the law settled by Supreme Court in several cases including Commissioner of Police Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 and Mohinder Singh Gill and others Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and others reported in AIR 1978 SC 851.
It is well settled that any order be that may an administrative one if adversely affect civil rights of a person must contained reasons. The reasons in support to a decision carries fairness and objectivity. Such consideration is apparently absent in the order dated 18.12.2002.
In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal that may warrant interference. Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 Shekhar [Chandra Dhari Singh, J.] [Govind Mathur, J.]