# Narendra Nath Sinha v. The State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 41
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-nath-sinha-v-the-state-of-u-p-38999
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

3All] Narendra Nath Sinha V. The State of U.P.
41

14. In the instant case we find that
Petitioners- Respondents were appointed
in the year 1993. There is no complaint
about their working as teachers in the
college. Nothing has been brought on
record to otherwise disqualify and/or
discontinue them in service. Management
and
authorities
appear
to
have
no
complaint about their performance as
teacher and seems satisfied with their
functioning,
From
the
Supplementary
Affidavit, it transpires that some of the
vacancies became substantively vacant in
August 1993 itself. There is nothing on
record to show that District Inspector of
Schools took any step to make regular ad
hoc
appointment
when
'short
term
vacancy' became 'substantive vacancy' in
accordance with Removal of Difficulties
Order even though several years have
passed.

15. Taking a pragmatic view as well
as interest of the educational institution,
we have no doubt that the direction given
by the learned single Judge requires no
interference.

The Appeal lacks merit and it is
accordingly, dismissed.

No costs.
 Special Appeal Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$' 0$<
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$' 0$<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( '5&+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( '5&+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

1DUHQGUD 1DWK 6LQKD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83
«5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 73 6LQJK
6UL $VKRWRVK 6ULYDVWDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

'RZQJUDGLQJ WKH &KDUDFWHU 5ROO (QWULHV
1R RSSRUWXQLW\ RI KHDULQJ JLYHQ HQWDLOV
FLYLO FRQVHTXHQFHV RUGHU TXDVKHG
+HOG 3DUD
$ ODUJH QXPEHU RI JURXQGV KDYH EHHQ
WDNHQ LQ WKLV ZULW SHWLWLRQ EXW LQ RXU
RSLQLRQ WKLV ZULW SHWLWLRQ GHVHUYHV WR EH
DOORZHG RQ D VKRUW SRLQW WKDW EHIRUH
GRZQJUDGLQJ WKH FKDUDFWHU UROO HQWULHV QR
UHDVRQV KDYH EHHQ UHFRUGHG DQG QR VKRZ
FDXVH QRWLFH ZDV JLYHQ WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU
,Q RXU RSLQLRQ WKH GRZQJUDGLQJ RI WKH
FKDUDFWHU
UROO
HQWULHV
KDV
FLYLO
FRQVHTXHQFHV
+HQFH
RSSRUWXQLW\
RI
KHDULQJ VKRXOG KDYH EHHQ JLYHQ WR WKH
SHWLWLRQHU DQG UHDVRQV VKRXOG KDYH EHHQ
UHFRUGHG IRU GRZQJUDGLQJ WKH HQWULHV EXW
WKDW ZDV QRW GRQH DQG KHQFH WKH UXOHV RI
QDWXUDO MXVWLFH DV ZHOO DV WKH *2 GDWHG
 DQG KDYH EHHQ YLRODWHG $V
KHOG E\ WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW LQ 6WDWH RI
2ULVVD YHUVXV %LQDSDQL 'HL $,5 6&

DQ\
RUGHU
ZKLFK
KDV
FLYLO
FRQVHTXHQFHV
PXVW
EH
SDVVHG
DIWHU
JLYLQJ
RSSRUWXQLW\
RI
KHDULQJ
7KH
LPSXJQHG
RUGHUV
FHUWDLQO\
KDYH
FLYLO
FRQVHTXHQFHV
DV
WKH\
DIIHFW
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU¶V FKDQFHV RI SURPRWLRQ DQG
IXWXUH SURVSHFWV ,Q 61 0XNKHUMHH 9V
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD $,5 6& WKH
INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
42
6XSUHPH &RXUW KHOG WKDW UHDVRQV VKRXOG
EH UHFRUGHG 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW LQ WKDW
GHFLVLRQ
REVHUYHG
WKDW
UHFRUGLQJ
WKH
UHDVRQV E\ DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DXWKRULW\
VHUYHV D VDOXWDU\ SXUSRVH QDPHO\ LW
H[FOXGHV
FKDQFHV RI DUELWUDULQHVV DQG
DVVXUHV
D
GHJUHH
RI
IDLUQHVV
LQ
WKH
SURFHVV RI GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 7KH GHFLVLRQ
RI WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW LQ 83 -DO 1LJDP¶V
FDVH 6XSUD DOVR VXSSRUWV WKLV YLHZ
,Q %UHHQ Y $(8 $// (5
/RUG 'HQQLQJ REVHUYHG WKDW JLYLQJ RI
UHDVRQV LV RQH RI WKH IXQGDPHQWDOV RI
JRRG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 6& $$,5 6& $,5
 6& $,,(5 4%

By the Court

1. This writ petition has been filed
for quashing the impugned order dated
2.5.2000 Annexure 6 to the writ petition
and for quashing the downgraded entries
of the petitioner pertaining to the years
1984-85 to 1989-1990, 1993-94 and 199495 in the petitioner's A.C.R. and to
consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Chief Engineer
Level-against the vacancy of; the year
1994-95 ignoring the downgrading entries
given by the Receiving Officer and
Accepting Officer.

We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner is presently working
as Superintending Engineer in P.W.D.,
U.P. The U.P. Public Service Commission
selected him as Assistant Engineer and
thereafter he was appointed. He was
promoted as Executive Engineer from
12./7.79 and further as Superintending
Engineer initially on adhoc basis and later
on regular basis on which post he is
working since 30.5.81. He is seeking
promotion
as
Chief
Engineer
LevelII(Electrical and Mechanical) under the
U.P. Public Works Department Services of
Engineers (Higher) Rules, 1990, Rule 5
(iii) of the said Rule provides that the post
of Chief Engineer Level-II shall be filled
in
by
promotion
from
substantively
appointed Superintending Engineers. True
copy of the Rules isAnnexure1 to the
petition. A vacancy on that post arose on
account of retirement of one Sri D.M.
Gupta in 1994. Thereafter when he retired
one A.N. Tiwari who was junior to the
petitioner was promoted on 4.12.98 and
when A.N. Tiwari retired one Harish
Kumar who was also junior to the
petitioner was promoted on 28.1.1999 as
Chief Engineer Level-II. The petitioner
filed a claim petition before the U.P.
Public Services Tribunal and the Tribunal
by judgement dated 30.8,.99 allowed the
petition vide Annexure 2 to the petition.
The Tribunal quashed the appointment of
Sri A.N. Tewari and Sri Harish Kumar and
directed that fresh appointment shall be
made after selection by the Selection
Committee and the petitioner shall also be
considered. In para 10 of the petition it is
alleged that the petitioner is not being
considered as the entries given by the
Reporting Officer have been downgraded
in the character roll by the Reviewing
Authority
and
Accepting
Authority
without giving opportunity of hearing and
without showing any reason. Though the
Reporting Officer had given entries 'very
good' and 'excellent' but the Reviewing
Authority had downgraded such entries. In
para 11 of the petition it is alleged that
promotion from Superintending Engineer
to Chief Engineer is determined on the
basis of merit taking into consideration
entries for the last 10 years. In para 13 of
the petition it is stated that the State
Government by government order dated
3All] Narendra Nath Sinha V. The State of U.P.
43
28.3.84 laid down the procedure by which
A.C.R. was to be recorded. Clause 4 (2) of
the
government
order
dated
28.3.84
provides that in case of difference of
opinion between the Reporting Officer and
the Reviewing Officer, the Reviewing
Officer shall record reasons for the same
and similarly the Accepting Officer must
also record reasons. True copy of the
government
order
dated
28.3.84
is
Annexure 3. The G.O. dated 5./3.93,
Annexure 4 to the petition, also required
recording of reasons for down grading
entries. The petitioner has relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal
Nigam versus Prabhat Chandra Jain and
others reported in 1996 (2) SC 363 which
laid down that reasons must be recorded
for down grading the entries. True copy of
the judgement of the Supreme Court is
Annexure 5 to the petition.

3. In Para 19 of the writ petition it is
alleged that the petitioner was not given
any notice before downgrading the entries.
Aggrieved
the
petitioner
filed
a
representation dated 28.10.99 to the State
Govt. vide Annexure 6 to the petition and
he made a supplementary representation
dated 5.2.2000, which is Annexure 7 to the
petition. Thereafter, he filed writ petition
no. 1799 of 1999 in this Court which was
disposed of by judgement dated 3.11.99
vide Annexure 8. By that judgement this
Court
directed
that
the
petitioner's
representation shall be decided by the
Principal Secretary before the meeting of
the Departmental Promotion Committee by
a speaking order. The representation of the
petitioner was disposed of by means of the
impugned order dated 2.5.2000 vide
Annexure 9. Aggrieved the petitioner filed
this writ petition in this Court.

4. In this case on 9.5.2000 learned
Standing Counsel gave an undertaking that
he will seek instructions or file counter
affidavit but no counter affidavit has been
filed
although
the
record
has
been
produced before us.

5. A large number of grounds have
been taken in this writ petition but in our
opinion this writ petition deserves to be
allowed on a short point that before
downgrading the character roll entries no
reasons have been recorded and no show
cause notice was given to the petitioner. In
our opinion the downgrading of the
character
roll
entries
has
civil
consequences. Hence opportunity of
hearing should have been given to the
petitioner and reasons should have been
recorded for downgrading the entries but
that was not done, and hence the rules of
natural justice as well as the G.O. dated
28.3.84 and 5.3.93 have been violated. As
held by the Supreme Court in State of
Orissa versus Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC
1269
any
order,
which
has
civil
consequences must be passed after giving
opportunity of hearing. The impugned
orders certainly7 have civil consequences
as they affect the petitioner's chances of
promotion and future prospects. In S.N.
Mukherjee vs. Union of India AIR 1990
SC 1984, the Supreme Court held that
reasons should be recorded. The Supreme
Court in that decision observed that
recording of reasons by an administrative
authority
serves
a
salutary
purpose,
namely,
it
excludes
chances
of
arbitrariness and assures a degree of
fairness in the process of decision making.
The decision of the Supreme Court in U.P.
Jal Nigam's case (supra) also supports this
view.
INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
44
In Breen v. AEU, (1971) 1 All ER
1148 Lord Denning observed that giving
of reasons is one of the fundamental of
good administration.'

6. The rationale for the requirement
to
give
reasons
for
administrative
decisions are several (1) Reasons help to
control the exercise of discretion, for it
requires the authority to explain the
relevant factors which he has taken into
consideration, and thus it reduces the
possibility of whim and caprice, (2)
Reasons satisfy the desire of the affected
person to know why the decision was
reached (particularly when it is against
him). As held in In re Poyser and Mills
Arbitration (1964) 2 QB 467' The decision
might be perfectly right, but the person
against whom it was made was left with
the real grievance that he was not told why
the decision had been made.' (3) Rational
criticism of a decision can be made only
when its reasons are known.

7. As De Smith, Woolf and Jowell
remark
in
'Judicial
Review
of
Administrative Action'. "The individual
cannot be left to receive an unreasoned
decision, as if the distant oracle has
spoken."

8. The requirement to give reasons
even for administrative decisions is being
emphasized by Courts all over the world in
view of the forward march of democracy,
which implies transparency and openmindedness, e.g. in Ireland vide State of
McGeough
v.Lough
Country
Council
ILTR 107, and in South Africa vide
Nkondo v. Minister of law and Order
(1986) 2 SA 756, and Jeffrey v. President,
South
African
Medical
and
Dental
Council, (1987). S 887.

9. As observed by Mr. Soli Sorabji,
Attorney General of India, in his article
'The
Duty
to
give
reasons
in
Administrative Law'. ' The apprehension
that
giving
reasons
will
place
an
unbearable burden on the administration is
both exaggerated and misplaced. What is
needed is not a detailed and elaborate
judgement, but a brief and pithy statement
of
reasons
for
the
decision.'
(vide
'Democracy, Human rights and the Rulejof
Law'
Essays
in
Honour
of
Nani
Palkhivala).

10. In the circumstances the writ
petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated2/5/2000 as well as the impugned
downgrading entries are quashed. The
respondents are directed to consider the
petitioner for promotion to the post of
Chief
Engineer
level-II
ignoring
the
impugned order dated 2.5.2000 and the
impugned downgrading entries given by
the Reviewing Officer and Accepting
Officer. No order as to costs.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

6PW $QLVD ZLIH RI 6KDXNDW
DQG RWKHUV
«$SSOLFDQWV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQWV
6KUL 6XQLO .XPDU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 53 6LQJK DQG
$*$