STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. versus MAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 79 · Decided: 19-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
79
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 79
79
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
v.
MAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA
(Civil Appeal No. 2905 of 2022)
APRIL 19, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226 – High Court disposed
of writ petition without deciding it on merits and directed the State
to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal which was under
challenge before it – On appeal by State, held: The High Court
disposed of the writ petition in a most cavalier and cursory manner,
which is unsustainable – Order of the High Court is bereft of
reasoning – When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the
writ petition, there was the duty cast upon the High Court to deal
with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order – Matter
remanded to High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on
merits – Practice and Procedure.
Remanding the matter to High Court, the Court
HELD:1. From the writ petition produced on record, it
appears that the order passed by the Tribunal was challenged on
a number of grounds. None of the grounds raised in the writ
petition has been dealt with and/or considered by the High Court
on merits. There is no discussion at all on any of the grounds
raised in the writ petition. The High Court disposed of the writ
petition in a most cavalier and cursory manner, which is
unsustainable. The High Court was required to decide and dispose
of the writ petition on merits and consider the legality and
correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal. [Para 2.1]
[81-G; 82-B]
2. The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and
disposed of the writ petition without deciding the writ petition on
merits cannot be appreciated at all. When a number of issues/
grounds were raised in the writ petition, there was the duty cast
upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to
pass a reasoned order. [Para 2.2][82-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
3. The order of the High Court is bereft of reasoning.
Diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought
to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a
clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the
relevant documents. The matter is remanded to the High
Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits. [Paras 3,
4][83-D-E]
Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner  of
Income Tax 4 Circle 25(3) & Ors.(Civil Appeal
No.2200/2022); Central Board of Trustees v. Indore
Composite Private Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443 : [2018]
7 SCR 1130; and Union Public Service Commission v.
Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 516 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2018] 7 SCR 1130
Para 2.3
relied on
(2021) 4 SCC 516
Para 2.4
relied on
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2905
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2022 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WPSB No.09 of 2022.
Kaushal Gautam AAG, Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Ms. Namita
Choudhary, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ashok Singh, Shree Pal Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
orderpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital in WPSB No. 9/2022, by which the High Court has disposed of
the said writ petition without deciding the writ petition on merits and has
directed the Department to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal
which was under challenge before it, the State has preferred the present
appeal.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the Uttarakhand
Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun (for short “Tribunal”) in Claim Petition
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
81
No.104/DB/2009, by which the Tribunal directed the Department to ignore
the un-communicated “Uttam” entries in the ACRs while considering
the case of the original applicant – private respondent herein for his
promotion to the post of the Chief Engineer Level-2 by the reviewed
ACP, the State of Uttarakhand had preferred the writ petition before the
High Court. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High
Court has disposed of the said writ petition without deciding the writ
petition on merits and without expressing anything on the legality and
validity of the order passed by the Tribunal and has directed the State to
comply with the order passed by the Tribunal by observing that though
Tribunal had passed an order on 15th September, 2021, no review ACP
has been constituted. There is no discussion at al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.