BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Connected

2. Shri Ram Regar S/o Bheru Ram, resident of F-5/3 Van Vibhag Colony, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha-Addl.G.C. For Respondent(s) : None JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/04/2025

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, hence both petitions are taken up together and decided by this common order.

2. Both petitions have been preferred against the same common order dated 21.10.1999 passed by the Rajasthan Civil [2025:RJ-JP:14957] (2 of 4) [CW-4653/2000] Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the appeals submitted by the respondents before the Tribunal have been partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to grant salary to the respondents as equivalent to one Prabhu Dayal.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that both respondents approached the Tribunal by way of filing two different appeals with the prayer that the State Authorities be directed to consider their case for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) from the date, the persons junior to them were promoted, with all consequential benefits. Counsel submits that preliminary objections were taken by the petitioner by way of filing reply before the Tribunal wherein several facts were pleaded and the same were argued before the Tribunal but the Tribunal has passed the impugned order in one para without giving any findings on the same. Counsel submits that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has not passed speaking order after taking into account the pleadings of the reply filed on the arguments raised, hence under these circumstances, the same is non-speaking order and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. None present on behalf of the respondents after service. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that both the respondents approached the Tribunal by way of filing two different appeals with a common prayer for issuing directions to the petitioner State to consider their case for promotion to the post of LDC from the date [2025:RJ-JP:14957] (3 of 4) [CW-4653/2000] persons junior to them, were promoted. A detailed reply to the aforesaid appeal and the facts mentioned therein was submitted by the petitioner and even various preliminary objections were taken in para 1 of the memo of reply which reads as under:- “The appeal of the appellant in hopelessly timebarred because neither he has challenged the orders of promotion issued in the year 1988 nor he has challenged the order dated 13.2.96 and 29.2.96 within limitation. The appeal of the appellant is not maintainable on merit because when the DPC was held on 11.4.88 he never submitted that he has passed the Prathma Examination nor said qualification was entered in the service book of the appellant and for that very reason his name was not sent by the Conservator of forest amongst the eligible candidates. It is submitted that even when the provisional Seniority list was issued against the name of the appellant the qualification was mentioned as 9th class even then he submitted no representation for entering his qualification as Prathma, Shri Prabhu Dayal had submitted that he has passed the Prathma Examination before the meeting of the DPC hence his name was included amongst the eligible candidates and his result was kept in sealed cover subject to verification of the qualification hence vide order dated 15.2.96 he was rightly given retrospective promotion,. After 1986 Hindi qualification was not permissible because rule 12 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 was amended vide Notification dated 28.6.85 hence for the vacancies subsequent to the year 1984-85 such persons were not eligible subsequently when clarification was received then subject to decision of the large bench the appellant was given promotion vide order dated 25.8.96.”

7. It appears that without considering the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner-State and without recording a finding thereupon, the order impugned has been passed in one para. The impugned order is a non-speaking order and it is a settled proposition of law that every Authority, whether Tribunal or Court are expected to pass reasoned orders on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and rival arguments made by respective [2025:RJ-JP:14957] (4 of 4) [CW-4653/2000] counsels but in the instant case, neither the facts pleaded in the reply nor the arguments raised before the Tribunal were taken into account and the impugned order has been passed in one para. The appeal submitted by the respondents have been decided in a cursory manner, which does not reflect the application of mind on the part of Tribunal. On this count alone, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside.

8. Both writ petitions are disposed of. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh, after hearing the arguments raised by both side. It is expected from the Tribunal to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

9. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

24.04.2025.

10. Since the respondents have remained absent before this Court and they are not aware about passing of this order, it is expected from the Tribunal to issue fresh notice to the respondents before deciding the appeal submitted by them. Ashu/4-5 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J