Dr Somesh Singh vs The Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7334 MP

                                                                         1                               WP-24643-2021
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        WP No. 24643 of 2021
                                         (DR SOMESH SINGH Vs THE NANAJI DESHMUKH VETERINARY SCIENCE UNIVERSITY (NDVSU)
                                                                     JABALPUR AND OTHERS)


                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 12-11-2021
                                             Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.

                                             Shri Praveen Dubey, counsel for the respondents.

The present petition is being filed challenging the order dated 18.10.2021 (Annexure P-11), passed by the respondent no.1; whereby, the earlier order dated 08.10.2020 has been cancelled in flagrant violation of the

principles of natural justice and fair play as no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order.

It is submitted that the petitioner being an employee of the respondent no.1 Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University (NDVSU), Jabalpur is working as Assistant Professor, Wild Life Health and Management. Initially he was appointed as Assistant Professor in Wild Life Science College of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture in Allahabad Agricultural University on 10.07.2007. Thereafter, in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the

respondent no.1 inviting application for eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, Wild Life Health and Management. Petitioner fulfilling the requisite qualifications applied for the same and participated in the selection of appointment and on the recommendation of the Selection Committee he was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, Wild Life Health and Management vide order dated 31.01.2012. Petitioner joined at the present place after being relieved from Allahabad Agricultural University. Earlier the petitioner was working on the equivalent post of Assistant Professor in the scale of Rs.15,600-39,100+AGP of 6,000/- . The respondent no.1 treated him as a fresh appointee and he was placed in the minimum scale of pay causing financial loss to the petitioner. A

Signature Not Verified representation was submitted by the petitioner seeking counting of his past SAN

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.11.16 18:37:54 IST 2 WP-24643-2021 services and pay protection and after due consideration on the representation the authorities have passed an order dated 08.10.2020 and he was extended the benefit of counting of services of rendered by him in Allahabad Agricultural University and consequent protection of pay. The aforesaid order was passed on the basis of decision taken by the Administrative Council of respondent no.1 University in the meeting held on 24.07.2018. After obtaining

the approval from the Finance Department, the Comptroller of Accounts issued the final order sanctioning the revised pay scale on 15.09.2021. The petitioner; thus, was extended the benefit of counting of past services and consequent pay protection was granted to the petitioner. All of a sudden the impugned order has been passed by the Vice Chancellor, NDVSU, Jabalpur on 18.10.2021; whereby, the benefit, which has been extended to the petitioner has been withdrawn by cancelling the order dated 08.10.2020. Attention is drawn to the order dated 18.10.2021 and argued that it is totally a non speaking order and prior to passing such order no notice was issued to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was granted him and a non speaking order was passed, which is violation of principles of natural justice and fair play as the same is causing monetary loss and is having civil consequences. He has submitted that the same is not legally permissible and placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in 2010 9 SCC 496. It is argued that the reasons are the heartbeats of the judgment; therefore, the authorities passing an order is required to assign reasons for the same. It is further contended that the order extending the benefit to the petitioner regarding counting of his past services was based upon a decision taken by the Administrative Council of the respondent no.1 University and the Vice Chancellor alone is having no powers to recall that order. In such circumstances, he has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents, on advance notice fairly submits that the order is a non speaking order and in view of the Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.11.16 18:37:54 IST 3 WP-24643-2021 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another (supra) they are required to reconsider the case of the petitioner. He submits that the matter be relegated back to the authorities for reconsideration.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another (supra) has held as under:-

"œ47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:-

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

( c ) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider

principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

( e ) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

( i ) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the

Signature Not Verified litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

  SAN




Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2021.11.16 18:37:54 IST
                                                                                 4                               WP-24643-2021

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

( m ) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

( n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

( o ) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process."

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the impugned order Annexure P-1, dated 18.10.2021, which is clearly a non-speaking order as no reasons are assigned for cancellation of the order dated 08.10.2020, the authorities have not even applied its mind prior to passing the impugned order. Apart from it, the decision to extend the benefits was taken by the Administrative Council of respondent no.1; therefore, the competency of authority is also questionable in the present Signature Not Verified SAN case.

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.11.16 18:37:54 IST 5 WP-24643-2021 In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.10.2021 (Annexure P-11) is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The matter is relegated back to the authorities for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner and pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so desire.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rues.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

taj

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.11.16 18:37:54 IST