1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of salesman(Junior Grade) and thereafter on the post of Salesman(Senior Grade) and Assistant Superintendent store w.e.f the date persons junior to the petitioner have been considered and promoted on these posts.
2. Petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure No.1.
3. In the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as sales attendant w.e.f. 21.2.1973 and his name finds mention at serial no.4 in the seniority list of sales attendants prepared on 3.8.1973. The position in regard to seniority was reiterated in seniority list dated 9.7.1975, and thereafter in 1995.
4. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Spinning supervisor w.e.f. 18.12.1996 and since then the petitioner is continuing as Spinning Supervisor with excellent record with no adverse entry. Seniority lists have been appended as Annexure Nos.2, 3 and 4, respectively.
5. It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioner was placed in selection grade on the post of sales attendant on the basis of his having rendered satisfactory service for 10 years vide order dated 3.4.1987 w.e.f. 1.7.1985. The petitioner was also promoted in promotional pay scale vide order dated 29.3.1991 w.e.f. 1.7.1991 on the basis of seniority, subject to rejection of the unfit. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was given higher pay scale on the basis of seniority of the petitioner, subject to rejection of the unfit. The petitioner crossed efficiency bar w.e.f. 31.1.1990. Relevant orders in above regards, have been placed on record as Annexure Nos.5,6, 7 and 8.
6. It has been pointed out by Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that next promotion from the post of sales attendant is to the post of Salesman (Junior Grade) and thereafter the post of Salesman (Senior Grade) and thereafter Assistant Superintendent (Store). It has specifically been pleaded that the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the said posts on the basis of seniority and also because persons junior to the petitioner have been allowed promotion.
7. In para 6 of the petition, it has been pleaded that the persons junior to the petitioner have been given promotion, however, the petitioner has not been promoted. Learned counsel states that the petitioner is not challenging promotion of persons junior to the petitioner, however, is asserting the right of the petitioner to be promoted from the date persons junior to the petitioner were promoted.
8. It has also been pleaded that promotion was required to be given on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner made representation for claiming promotion vide representation dated 26.3.1999. Shri A.P.Singh has pointed out that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order Annexure No.1 which palpably is illegal and cannot be considered as an order deciding the rights of the petitioner to claim promotion.
9. Counter affidavit has not been filed to controvert the plea of the petitioner.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. None has put in appearance for the respondents. Further indulgence cannot be shown in favour of the respondents as the petition relates to the year 1999. 15 long years have been gone by. The petitioner is still in service, therefore the cause still survives.
12. This Court has considered contents of representation dated 26.3.1999. The representation is a detailed document filed alongwith 19 Annexures so as to substantiate the right of the petitioner to promotion.
13. The court has perused impugned order dated 14.7.1999 vide which the representation has been rejected. When translated the relevant portions reads that "after due consideration and taking a sympathetic view, the Chief Executive Officer has rejected your representation."
14. The petitioner has claimed promotion on the basis of his seniority w.e.f. the date persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted. While making the representation, 19 documents have been appended. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case have not been considered, while deciding representation made by the petitioner. Claim of the petitioner was required to be decided by the respondents vide a considered and reasoned order.
15. The importance and relevance of giving reasons, while deciding a claim have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while relying on State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh : JT 2004 (5) SC 482, in State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar reported as (2004) 5 SCC 568, the following has been held (relevant paras 7 and 8 ) :
"7. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.
8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971(1) All E.R. 1148 observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtreee 1974 ICR 120) ( NIRC) it was observed : "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system ; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made ; in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."
16. Perusal of the impugned order Annexure No.1 clearly indicates that although the respondents were required to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion in context of his eligibility and also for the reason that the persons junior to the petitioner had allegedly been promoted, yet no reasons have been given in the order. The order has been conveyed to the petitioner. However, the petitioner has not been conveyed the reasons why his claim for promotion has been rejected.
17. The matter has been brought before this Court. Because the order passed by the respondents does not contain reasons, even this Court is not aware as to whether claim of the petitioner for promotion has been rejected for the right reason or for the reasons that are unreasonable and arbitrary. Thus, no adjudication is possible. It is therefore clear that in absence of reasons, the impugned order is rendered not sustainable in law.
18. In view of above, petition is allowed. Order Annexure No.1 dated 14.7.1999 is hereby quashed.
19. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in context of representation dated 26.3.1999 and also what has been pleaded in this writ petition and thereafter pass appropriate order while assigning reasons. The order be passed after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other person(s) whose right might be adversely affected.
20. On account of delay already caused, the entire exercise of passing an order on the claim of the petitioner be concluded within four months from the date of serving certified copy of this order.
21. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated on the right of the petitioner to promotion.
Order Date :- 20.2.2014 Shukla