S.Abdul Salam Sahib v. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.11..2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARW.P. No.18661 of 2006S.Abdul Salam Sahib ...Petitioner Vs.1. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.9.2. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chendnai.2. ... RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecords relating to the Government Letter No.25050/UD2 (2)/05-1,dated 20.9.2005 on the file of the first respondent andconsequently direct the respondents herein to promote thepetitioner to the post of Assistant notionally with effect from thedate on which his immediate junior came to be promoted with allconsequential service, attendant and monetary benefits and pay allthe arrears. For Petitioner : Mrs.G. Sridevi For Respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, Addl. Govt. Pleader O R D E RThis writ petition is filed challenging the order of thefirst respondent dated 20.9.2005 and consequently direct therespondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistantnotionally with effect from the date on which his immediate junior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ came to be promoted with all consequential service, attendant andmonetary benefits and pay all the arrears.2. The petitioner originally worked as Upper DivisionAccountant in the office of the second respondent. According tothe petitioner, he was holding the post of Junior Assistant in thesecond respondent department since 1982. While considering thenames of the persons to be promoted to the post of Assistant in thepanel of the year 1987, the petitioner's name was not included.Therefore, he made a representation on 22.10.1987. But it is nowstated by the petitioner that his name has been included in thepanel of the year 1998 and subsequently, promoted as Assistant.3. At present, the petitioner's grievance is that hadhis name been included in the panel of the year 1987, he would notbe working under his juniors as in the present. The case of thepetitioner was recommended by the Special Commissioner (Town andCountry Planning) in ROC No.J3/39579/99-1, dated 24.4.2001. TheSecretary to Government by the letter dated 26.4.2004, rejectedthe petitioner's plea for including his name in the panel for thepost of Assistant in the year 1987 and the reason given by theGovernment is that no mistake had crept in. A review was filedfor reconsideration and dismissed on 20.9.2005 vide letterNo.25050/UD2/(2)05.1, which is the order impugned in the presentwrit petition. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that no goodreason has been shown as to why the name of the petitioner has notbeen included in the panel of the year 1987. Even though theauthorities have already recommended the case of the petitionerfavourably, without assigning any reason, the appeal and the reviewhave been rejected by the Government by cryptic orders. 5. A counter has been filed by the second respondentexplaining the reason for non inclusion of the petitioner's name inthe panel of the year 1987. A detailed explanation has been givenin the counter affidavit which unfortunately does not find placein the order of the Government or in the order dismissing thereview petition. 6. It is trite law that the case of the respondentscannot be improved on the basis of the counter-affidavit or thewritten submissions vide Mohinder Singh Gill and another – v. - TheChief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others AIR 1978 SupremeCourt 851 and S.N.Mukherjee – v. - Union of India (1990)4 SCC 594.In para 8 of the decision in AIR 1978 SC 851 reads as follows:-"8. The second equally relevant matter isthat when a statutory functionary makes an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order based on certain grounds, its validitymust be judged by the reasons so mentioned andcannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in theshape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, anorder bad in the beginning may, by the time itcomes to court on account of a challenge, getvalidated by additional grounds later broughtout. We may here draw attention to theobservations of Bose, J., in Gordhandas Bhani(AIR 1952 SC 16)(at p.18):"Public orders publicly made, inexercise of a statutory authoritycannot be construed in the light ofexplanations subsequently given bythe officer making the order of whathe meant, or of what was in hismind, or what he intended to do.Public orders made by publicauthorities are meant to have publiceffect and are intended to affect theacting and conduct of those to whomthey are addressed and must beconstrued objectively with referenceto the language used in the orderitself".Orders are not like old wine becoming better asthey grow older."Para 36 in (1990)4 SCC 594 reads thus:-"36. Reasons, when recorded by anadministrative authority in an order passed byit while exercising quasi-judicial functions,would no doubt facilitate the exercise of itsjurisdiction by the appellate or supervisoryauthority. But the other considerations,referred to above, which have also weighed withthis Court in holding that an administrativeauthority must record reasons for its decision,are of no less significance. Theseconsiderations show that the recording ofreasons by an administrative authority serves asalutary purpose, namely, it excludes chancesof arbitrariness and ensures a degree offairness in the process of decision making.The said purpose would apply equally to alldecisions and its application cannot beconfined to decisions which are subject to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeal, revision or judicial review. In ouropinion, therefore, the requirement thatreasons be recorded should govern the decisionsof an administrative authority exercisingquasi-judicial functions irrespective of thefact whether the decision is subject to appeal,revision on judicial review. It may, however,be added that it is not required that thereasons should be as elaborate as in thedecision of a court of law. The extent andnature of the reasons would depend onparticular facts and circumstances. What isnecessary is that the reasons are clear andexplicit so as to indicate that the authorityhas given due consideration to the points incontroversy. The need for recording ofreasons is greater in a case where the order ispassed at the original stage."7. Since the order under challenge is a non speakingorder and without reasons, the same is set aside and theGovernment/first respondent is directed to reconsider the case ofthe petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law asexpeditiously as possible. This writ petition is allowed to theextent indicated above. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarraTo1. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chendnai.2.+1cc to Govt.Pleader Sr 59243VS(CO)km/30.11. WP No. 18661 of 2006