Manoj Kumar Sa State of Odisha & others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) No.4494 of 2016 Manoj Kumar Sa State of Odisha & others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. Satyajit Behera, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA Order No. 03. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 22.03.2024 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. Satyajit Behera, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner late Bamadev Sa, working as Soil Conservation Sectional Officer died on 07.02.2013 leaving behind his wife, old father and two children. Since his mother (wife of late Bamadev Sa) was unfit for undertaking Government employment as per Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Board, the elder son of late Bamadev Sa- present petitioner, namely, Manoj Kumar Sa applied for consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistances) Rules, 1990. He drew attention of this Court to Annexure-10, which is a letter bearing No.AGR-SCFE-FE-0025-2015- 13912/AG dated 19.08.2016 which reveals no reason has been assigned by the Government while rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment under the aforesaid Rules.
Legal Reasoning
3. Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Page 1 of 7 Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-opposite parties on the other hand, referring to para-8 of the counter affidavit filed by the State submitted that there was delay in submission of medical certificate which led to rejection of application in terms of the provisions of Rule 2(b) read with Rule 9(7) of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. 4. Raising objection against such submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by way of counter affidavit, further reason cannot be supplemented and this Court may not entertain such submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties. 5. Perusal of Annexure-10 as referred to by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner transpires that: “I am directed to invite a reference to your letter No.4762/SC., dt.29.07.2015 on the subject noted above and to say that after careful consideration of the proposal for appointment of Sri Manoj Kumar Sa, S/O late Bamadev Sa, Ex-SCSO, Office of the P.D, Watershed, Jharsuguda under R.A. Scheme, the Principal Secretary to Government Department of Agriculture & Farmers’ Empowerment has been pleased to reject the same being devoid of merit”. Bare perusal of said letter of rejection of application indicates non- application of mind and non-assignment of reasons for the decision. It is trite that by way of counter affidavit, reasons cannot be ascribed to countenance the order of rejection vide Annexure- 10. 6. In Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 wherein referring to catena of decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized as Page 2 of 7 follows: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d. Recording of reasons also operatives as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these Page 3 of 7 decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in Page 4 of 7 setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of ‘Due Process’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagtamba Devi Vrs. Hem Ram and others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 509 at paragraph- 10 while quoting a decision in the case of Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen Vrs. Amalgamated Engg. Union reported in (1971) 2 QB 175, observed that “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration’. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vrs. Crabtree, reported in 1974 ICR 120 it was observed that 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.” In Raj Kishore Jha Vrs. State of Bihar, JT 2003 (Supp.II) SC 354, Page 5 of 7 it has been held that, “reason” is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. The same view has also been taken in State of Orissa Vrs. Dhaniram Luhar, JT (2004) 2 SC 172. In Union of India Vrs. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 : (1973) 2 SCC 836, it has been held that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in Uma Charan Vrs.