Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar vs Syndicate Bank And 2 Others on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5113 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rajkumar
Respondent :- Syndicate Bank And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Mohan Asthana
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In compliance of my last order, Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has obtained instructions in the matter which are taken on record.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by respondent no. 2/ Syndicate Bank, Branch Anaj Mandi, Vrindavan, Mathura, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. No reason has been assigned as to what mitigating factors are lacking so as to reject the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
Per contra, it is argued by counsel for the respondent that as per his instructions, the claim of the petitioner does not fall on the parameters upon which the claim for compassionate appointment can be considered. He submits that instructions are complete in this respect and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the order impugned. He argues that the question of compassionate appointment under the scheme of bank is something different from general rule of compassionate appointment prescribed by State Government and Central Government and if the claim of a candidate does not stand on the parameters prescribed for under the scheme, then such claim is liable to be rejected.
Be that as it may, no amount of pleadings raised in the counter affidavit can substitute the reasoning necessary to pass order by an administrative authority. The order impugned is to be considered on its own reasoning assigned therein which I find to be quite lacking in the order impugned here in this case.
In my above view, I find support in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of East Coast Railway vs. Mahadev Appa Rao (2010) 7 SCC 678 in which relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16 vide paragraphs 8 and 9, the Court has held thus:
"8. There is no quarrel with the well-settled proposition of law that an order passed by a public authority exercising administrative/executive or statutory powers must be judged by the reasons stated in the order or any record or file contemporaneously maintained. It follows that the infirmity arising out of the absence of reasons cannot be cured by the authority passing the order stating such reasons in an affidavit filed before the Court where the validity of any such order is under challenge. The legal position in this regard is settled by the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) wherein this Court observed :-
"9. .........public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
In view of the above, the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by respondent no. 2/ Syndicate Bank, Branch Anaj Mandi, Vrindavan, Mathura cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted to the authority to pass order afresh.
It is clarified that this time, the respondent shall render due application of mind to the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment and the same shall be decided by passing a detailed order on the touchstone of the parameters/guidelines/rules, as may be applicable, as per the scheme for compassionate appointment. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and direction, petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 4.5.2022
Sanjeev
