Supreme Court was dealing with the petition challenging order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, 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.

Brief Facts:

Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim Petition, by which the Tribunal directed the Department to ignore the uncommunicated “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. Therefore, the Department approached the Apex Court.

SC’s Observations:

After hearing both the sides SC stated that 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 petition in a most cavalier and cursory manner, which is unsustainable.

SC stated that 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.

SC relied upon the case of Vishal Ashwin Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) & Ors. where it was observed 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.”

SC stated that the manner in which the High Court has disposed of the writ petition, in the interest of sobriety, 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.

SC Held:

After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “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. With the above directions, the present appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.”