Singh & Anr Vs. State of Haryana & Ors  INSC 219 (3 September 1991)
B.C. (J) Ray, B.C. (J) Fathima Beevi, M. (J)
1991 SCR (3) 859 1991 SCC Supl. (2) 207 JT 1991 (3) 603 1991 SCALE (2)492
of India: Articles 136, 226--Writ petition
dismissed by a non-speaking order--Whether reasons to be given.
Law: Haryana Police--Inspectors--Out of turn promotion as Deputy
Superintendents--Promotion order not mentioning reasons for--Validity of.
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.
of the appeal, this Court,
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.
the instant case, in the order of promotion there was not a single whisper why
the said out of turn promotion was given. [860E]
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]
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3471 of 1991.
the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.1990 Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 12328 of 1990.
G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.
Ms. Kusum Chaudhary and Y.K. Jain for the Respondent.
following Order of the Court was delivered:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
appeal is accordingly disposed of- R.P. Appeal disposed of.