MOHINDER SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 03-09-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
/ 
MOHINDER SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 
[B.C. RAY AND MS. M. FATHlMA BEEYI. JJ.I 
B 
Constitution of India: Articles 136, 226---Writ petition dismissed 
by a non-speaking order-Whether reasons to be given. 
Service Law: Haryana Police-Inspectors-Out of turn promo-
. tion as Deputy Superintendents-Promotion order not mentioning 
C 
reasons for-Validity of. 
Respondents no. 3 and 4, who were junior to the appellants as 
Inspectors of police in the State of Haryana, were given out of turn 
promotions as Deputy Superintendents of Police earlier than the appel-
lants. The AppeUants challenged the said promotion order in a writ 
D 
petition which ivas dismissed by the High Court by a non-speaking 
order_ Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal by special leave to this 
Court. 
Disposing of the appeal, thts Court, 
HELD: 1- The order dismissing the writ petition must be a speak-
ing one in order to enable the person affected to know what were the 
reasons which weighed with the High Court in dismissfug it. The High 
Court should not pass a laconic order. I 860G I 
E 
2. In the instant case, in the order of promotion there was not a 
F 
single whisper why the said out of turn promotion was given. [860E] 
3. The order of the High Court is fit to be set aside, and the case 
be sent back on remand to the High Coort to hear the writ petition after 
giving an opportunity to the parties and recording a reasoned speaking 
order on merits. I 861 A] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3471 
of 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.1990 Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 12328 of 1990. 
H 
859 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
G.K. Bansal for the Appellants. 
K.C. Bajaj, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary and Y.K. Jain for the 
Respondent. 
+-
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
B 
Special leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also 
considered the order passed by the High Court. Admittedly, these two' 
appellants were appointed much earlier to the appointment of respon-
c 
dent Nos. 3 and 4 in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. 
~· 
T)leir appointment being on 30.3.71 and 24.4.71 whereas the appoint-
ment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were on 18.2.83. They were pro-
II1oted in 1983 as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. On 1.1.89 respon-
d~nt Nos. 3 and 4 and appellant Nos.I and 2 were promoted as 
Inspectors of Police and a composite Seniority List of appellants, 
D 
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other similarly appointed persons was issued · 
by respondent No. 1 in which appellant No. 1 was shown at serial No. 
/ 
33, appellant No. 2 at serial No. 34 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 
were at serial numbers 46 and 47 respectively. On 16.10.89 by order of \ 
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State of Haryana and Director General of 
Police respondent No. 3 was promoted out of tum as Deputy Superin-
'-... 
E 
tendent of Police. On 23.10.89 respondent No. 4 was promoted as 
Deputy Superintendent of Police, out of tum. It is rather curious that 
not a single whisper was there in the order of promotion why the said, 
out of tum, promotion was given. It was tried to be contended by 
learned counsels on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that because of 
j 
their gallantry this out of tum promotion was given. However, there is 
F 
no whisper about this in the letters giving promotion. The appellants, 
on the other hand, were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of 
Police as on 11.1.90. While filing the Writ Petition before the High 
Court, the appellants stated that they came to know of this out of turn 
promotion sometime on 3.8.90. 
G 
We have considered the order of the High Court. It is really a 
matter of great regret that inspite of several pronouncements of this • 
Court that the order dismissing the writ petition must be a speaking 
order in order to enable the persons affected to know what were the 
reasons which weighed with the High Court in dismissing the writ 
petition. This Court has observed several times that the High Court 
fl should not pass laconic order. In that view of the matter, we think it 
. .,. 
MOH!NDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
861 
just, proper and fair to set aside the order of the High Court and send 
A 
the case back on remand to the High Court to hear out the writ peti-
tion after giving opportunity to parties and recording a reasoned 
speaking order on merits. 
The appeal is accordingly
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.