2008 (1) TMI 979 - SC - Indian Laws

Violation of principles of natural justice - Non-reasoned order of High Court - completely indefensible - Fixation of seniority list - Power of the Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ('Constitution') - HELD THAT - The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind. The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and the practice of rejecting appeals at the SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons with the one to be exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not the final court in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge before this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for any further appeal from the order made declining to grant special leave to appeal. It has been on more than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and every error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are special and extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the same with a writ petition. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. Thus, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law by a reasoned order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition related to the fixation of seniority.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition regarding seniority fixation. The High Court had summarily dismissed the petition without providing reasons, leading to the appellant's contention that important issues, such as the norms for fixing seniority, were not considered. The appellant argued that being placed below juniors in the seniority list was impermissible, a point overlooked by the High Court.

2. The respondent-State and its functionaries supported the High Court's order, while the appellant highlighted the lack of reasoning in the dismissal. The Supreme Court noted that the absence of reasons in the High Court's judgment made it unsustainable, emphasizing that reasons are essential for clarity in judicial orders and for the appellate process.

3. Citing previous cases, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of recording reasons in judicial decisions to ensure transparency, proper application of mind, and adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court highlighted that arbitrary decisions without reasons are detrimental to the judicial system. The Court differentiated the power under Article 136 of the Constitution from writ petitions, stating that the former aims to prevent miscarriage of justice, unlike the latter.

4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and remitting the matter back for fresh disposal with a reasoned order. The Court clarified that its decision did not reflect any opinion on the case's merit, emphasizing the necessity of providing reasons in judicial orders for a fair and just decision-making process.