/2022 INSC 0288/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2905 OF 2022
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.           ..Appellant (S)
Versus
Mayan Pal Singh Verma                    ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed   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
1

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   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   Level­2   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   15 th
September,   2021,   no   review   ACP   has   been   constituted.
There   is   no   discussion   at   all   by   the   High   Court   on   the
2

merits   of   the   order   passed   by   the   Tribunal,   which   was
under   challenge   before   it.   The   impugned   order   reads   as
under: ­ 
“The matter is taken up through virtual hearing.
Heard   Mr.   Pradeep   Joshi,   learned   Standing
Counsel for the appellant. 
In this case, the petitioner has assailed the order
passed   by   the   Uttarakhand   Public   Service   Tribunal,
Dehradun   in   Claim   Petition   No.   104/DB/2009
directing   the   opposite   party   to   ignore   the   un­
communicated   ''Uttam”   entries   in   the   ACRs   while
considering   the   case   of   the   private   respondent   for   his
promotion to the post  of the Chief Engineer level­2 by
the   reviewed   ACP.   It   is   further   directed   that   the
respondent­Department   may   hold   the   reviewed   ACP
within   three   months   from   the   date   representation   of
the   certified   copy   of   this   order.   This   Order   has   been
passed   on   15 th
  September,   2021   till   then   no   review
ACP   has   been   constituted.   Let   that   order   passed   by
the Tribunal be complied within 21 days from today. 
With   such   observation,   the   writ   application   is
disposed of.”
2.1 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
Division Bench of the High Court has disposed of the writ
3

petition in a most cavalier and cursory manner, which is
unsustainable.   The   High   Court   has   disposed   of   the   writ
petition   without   deciding  the   writ  petition   on   merits   and
has   directed   the   Department   to   comply   with   the   order
passed by the Tribunal solely by observing that the order
has been passed on 15 th
 September, 2021 and till date no
review   ACP   has   been   constituted.   However,   the   High
Court   ought   to   have   noted   that   the   order   passed   by   the
Tribunal was under challenge before it and therefore, 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. 
2.2 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. In the recent decision in the case of  Vishal Ashwin
Patel   Vs.   Assistant   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax
4

Circle 25(3) & Ors.   (Civil Appeal No. 2200/2022), it was
observed   by   this   Court   that   when   the   Constitution
confers   on   the   High   Courts   the   power   to   give   relief,   it
becomes the duty of the High Courts to give such relief in
appropriate cases and the High Courts would be failing to
perform   its   duty   if   relief   is   refused   without   adequate
reasons. It is further observed that in this case, the High
Court   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   226   of   the
Constitution of India was required to have independently
considered the legality and validity of the order passed by
the Tribunal which was under challenge before it. Neither
any   submission   on   merits   is   recorded   nor   is   there   any
discussion   on   the   merits   of   the   matter   on   the   order
passed   by   the   Tribunal.   There   is   no   application   of   mind
at all by the High Court on merits of the order passed by
the   Tribunal.   It   can   be   seen   that   the   High   Court   has
failed   to   exercise   its   jurisdiction   vested   in   it   while
exercising   the   powers   under   Article   226/227   of   the
Constitution of India. 
5

2.3 While   emphasising   the   necessity   to   pass   a   reasoned
order,   in   the   case   of   Central   Board   of   Trustees   Vs.
Indore Composite Private Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443,
it   was   observed   and   held   by   this   Court   that   the   courts
need to  pass a reasoned order  in every  case which  must
contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the
parties   to   the   lis,   the   issues   arising   in   the   case,   the
submissions   urged   by   the   parties,   the   legal   principles
applicable   to   the   issues   involved   and   the   reasons   in
support   of   the   findings   on   all   the   issues   arising   in   the
case and  urged by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties in
support   of   its   conclusion.   It   was   further   observed   in   the
said   decision   that   an   order   bereft   of   reasoning   causes
prejudice to the parties because it deprives them to know
the   reasons  as   to   why   one  party   has   won   and   other  has
lost. 
2.4 In a recent decision in the case of   Union Public Service
Commission   Vs.   Bibhu   Prasad   Sarangi   and   Ors.,
(2021) 4 SCC 516 , while emphasising that reasons ought
to   be   given   by   the   High   Court   while   exercising   powers
6

under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   it   was
observed   and   held   by   this   Court   that   the   reasons
constitute   the   soul   of   judicial   decision   and   how   Judges
communicate   in   their   judgment   is   a   defining
characteristic   of   judicial   process   since   quality   of   justice
brings   legitimacy   to   the   judiciary.   It   is   further   observed
that though statistics of disposal of cases is important, of
a   higher   value,   is   the   intrinsic   content   and   of   a   quality
judgment. It is further observed that in exercise of powers
under   Article   226   the   courts   require   to   independently
consider the issues involved. 
3. Applying   the   law   laid   by   this   Court   in   the   aforesaid
decisions   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand   and   the
manner in which the High Court has disposed of the writ
petition, in the interest of sobriety, we may only note that
the   order   is   bereft   of   reasoning   as   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. 
7

4. Since   we   cannot   countenance   the   manner   in   which   the
order   has   been   passed   by   the   High   Court   which   has
compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for
deciding   the   writ   petition   afresh   on   merits,   we   do   so   in
light of the aforesaid observations. 
5. In light of the foregoing  discussion, we allow the present
appeal   and   set   aside   the   impugned   order   passed   by   the
High Court and remand the matter to the Division Bench
of  the  High  Court for  deciding  the  writ petition  afresh  in
accordance   with   law,   keeping   in   view   our   observations
made   supra.   We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   we   have
refrained   from   making   any   observation   on   the   merits   of
the controversy, having formed an opinion to remand the
case   to   the   High   Court   only   for   the   reasons   mentioned
above.   The   High   Court   would,   therefore,   decide   the   writ
petition,   bearing   in   mind   our   observations   made   above
and strictly in accordance with law. 
With   the   above   directions,   the   present   appeal   is
accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
8

The  matter   is  remanded to  the  High  Court as  aforesaid.
No costs.            
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
April 19, 2022.
9