Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: "reasoned order" in Abhishek Kumar Singh vs G. Pattanaik on 3 June, 2021Matching Fragments
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. These cases essentially assail the orders dated 4.12.2018 and 2.3.2020 issued by the Chief Engineer (A21), Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Lucknow1, pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 15.11.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1101711018/2018 2. This Court by the aforesaid judgment, had directed the Uttar Pradesh For short, “the Chief Engineer” or “respondents” Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam & Ors. v. Ajit Singh Patel & Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 285 Jal Nigam (the respondent corporation) to comply with the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 3 dated 28.11.2017 in a batch of writ petitions (leading case being WritA No. 37143/2017) and pass a fresh, reasoned order.
In the above context you are expected to perform your duty at your previous posting place within 15 days from issuing of this order.
That it is being clarified that the said appointment will be subject to the liberty granted to Nigam, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 15.11.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 1101711018/2018. The concerning paragraphs are extracted below:
For short, “the High Court” “15. In view of the above, the challenge to the impugned judgment dated 28th November, 2017 and 25th July, 2017 must fail but with a clarification that the competent authority is free to pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law.
We direct the petitioners to file a report, in a sealed cover, within one month from today, as to what steps have been taken pursuant to the Judgment dated 28.11.2017 passed by the High Court and the order dated 16.03.2018 by this Court in the Special Leave Petition.
List on 20.09.2018.
The petitioners may approach the High Court and seek for extension of time.” (emphasis supplied) Be that as it may, the decisions of the High Court referred to above stood confirmed by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2018, giving liberty to the respondent(s) to pass a fresh, reasoned order. The relevant portion of the decision of this Court reads thus: “14. The limited plea taken before this Court as noted in the first paragraph of order dated 16 th March, 2018 was to allow the appellants to rework the question and answer sheets and revise the merit list and issue fresh, reasoned order after providing opportunity of hearing to the affected candidates. That option has been kept open. It is for the appellants to pursue the same. In other words, the appellants must, in the first place, act upon the decision of the High Court dated 28 th November, 2017 whereby the order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 11th August, 2017 has been quashed and set aside. The appellants may then proceed in the matter in accordance with law by passing a fresh, reasoned order. Indeed, while doing so, the appellants may take into consideration the previous inquiry reports as also all other relevant material/documents which have become available to them. We make it clear that we have not dilated on the efficacy of the opinion given by the experts of the “IIIT Allahabad and IIT Kanpur”.
14. The limited plea taken before this Court as noted in the first paragraph of order dated 16th March, 2018 was to allow the appellants to rework the question and answer sheets and revise the merit list and issue fresh, reasoned order after providing opportunity of hearing to the affected candidates. That option has been kept open. It is for the appellants to pursue the same. In other words, the appellants must, in the first place, act upon the decision of the High Court dated 28 th November, 2017 whereby the order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 11th August, 2017 has been quashed and set aside. The appellants may then proceed in the matter in accordance with law by passing a fresh, reasoned order. Indeed, while doing so, the appellants may take into consideration the previous inquiry reports as also all other relevant material/documents which have become available to them. We make it clear that we have not dilated on the efficacy of the opinion given by the experts of the “IIIT Allahabad and IIT Kanpur.” (emphasis supplied)