Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rampyare Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58929
1 WP-30933-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 30933 of 2024
RAMPYARE PRAJAPATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shankar Prasad Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Advocate for State.
Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.5.
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the operation of the earlier order dated 18.09.2024 has been stayed until further orders.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is holding the post of Upper Division Teacher and was being given the officiating charge of a Lecturer vide order dated 07.08.2024. The seniority list (Annexure P/3) has been filed pointing out the fact that the petitioner is shown to be working on the post of a Lecturer and the private respondent is working as Upper Division Teacher (Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak). In pursuance to the same vide order dated 18.09.2024 the petitioner has been granted the officiating charge in Shaskiya Uchatar MadhyamikVidyalaya Barach, Vikas Khand Panna, District Panna as In-Charge Principal. The execution of the said order has been suspended vide impugned order dated 27.09.2024 without assigning any reason. No Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 04-12-24 10:55:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58929 2 WP-30933-2024 show-cause notice, no opportunity of hearing and no reasons have been assigned while passing the impugned order. The District Education Officer, who has passed the order dated 27.09.2024 has failed to assign any reason. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. He has further drawn attention of this Court on the two judgments passed by this Court in the case of Ganga Singh Goutam vs. The State of M.P. (Writ Petition No.13433 of 2017, dated 06.08.2018) and in the case case of Ganga Singh vs. The State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1537 of 2013, dated 03.12.2013) passed in identical circumstances. It is argued that as the petitioner is holding the post of Lecturer and respondent No.4 is holding the post of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak then in all fairness the petitioner should be treated senior and he was rightly granted the charge vide Annexure P/2, therefore, he has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.
3. On notice being issued, the response has been filed by the State as well as the private respondent. Counsel appearing for the State by filing the reply has contended that the petitioner's substantive post is Upper Division Teacher. He was made In-charge Lecturer vide Annexure P/4 and thereafter vide Annexure P/2 he was handed over the charge in Shaskiya Uchatar MadhyamikVidyalaya Barach, Vikas Khand Panna, District Panna as In- Charge Principal. The fact remains that as he was a Upper Division Teacher and the respondent No.4 being appointed as directed Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak in pursuance to the examination conducted by the authorities Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 04-12-24 10:55:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58929 3 WP-30933-2024 which is reflected from R/5/1 filed with the return of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 is senior to the petitioner, therefore, the execution of the order has rightly been stayed by the District Education Officer.
5. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 by filing a reply has denied the petition averments and has reterieated the contentions of the State authorities. He submits that respondent No.5 is a direct appointee on the post of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak in pursuance to the examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board and the petitioner is only an In- charge Lecturer, therefore, the respondent No.5 is senior to the petitioner in all capacities. Therefore, the execution of the order Annexure P/2 has rightly been stayed by the District Education Officer.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. The document (Annexure P/1) being the order impugned reads as under:-
"कायालय प मांक/ था.01/2024/7435 प ना दनांक 18.09.2024 का या वयन अि म आदे श तक के िलए थिगत कर िनदिशत कया जाता है क सु ी उषा सुनकर उ च मा यिमक िश क पूवानुसार भार ाचाय शास. उ.मा. व. जला प ना के दािय व को िनवहन सुिन त करे गी।"
8. There are no reasons assigned by the District Education Officer as to why the execution of the order dated 18.09.2024 should be stayed. It is a settled proposition of law that the reasons are the heartbeats of the orders and even a quasi judicial authorities are required to pass a self contained speaking orders as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:-
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 04-12-24 10:55:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58929 4 WP-30933-2024 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 operates 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 04-12-24 10:55:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58929 5 WP-30933-2024 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 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".
9. The State counsel as well as counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 was put a specific question that whether any reasons are assigned while passing the impugned order or any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner there is no response from either side regarding any reason being assigned in the impugned order. They fairly submits that no reasons are being assigned, but they stick to their reply pointing out the fact that the substantive post of the petitioner is Upper Division Teacher, therefore, the respondent No.5 being senior to the petitioner was restrained to grant the charge. The fact remains that the reasons are to be assigned in the impugned order itself. By filing an affidavit the reasons cannot be substituted in the original orders as has been considered and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 04-12-24 10:55:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58929 6 WP-30933-2024 additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16):
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
10. In view of the aforesaid settled legal propositions of law if the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen then the impugned order does not reflect any reasons assigned by the District Education Officer. The reasons cannot be substituted by filing an additional affidavit. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable and is hereby quashed.
11. The writ petition stands allowed. However, authorities are at liberty to pass fresh order in case need so arises. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE THK Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 04-12-24 10:55:47 AM