Mohinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Special leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also considered the order passed by the High Court. Admittedly, these two' appellants were appointed much earlier to the appointment of respon- c dent Nos. 3 and 4 in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. ~· T)leir appointment being on 30.3.71 and 24.4.71 whereas the appoint- ment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were on 18.2.83. They were pro- II1oted in 1983 as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. On 1.1.89 respon- d~nt Nos. 3 and 4 and appellant Nos.I and 2 were promoted as Inspectors of Police and a composite Seniority List of appellants, D respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other similarly appointed persons was issued · by respondent No. 1 in which appellant No. 1 was shown at serial No. / 33, appellant No. 2 at serial No. 34 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were at serial numbers 46 and 47 respectively. On 16.10.89 by order of \ respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State of Haryana and Director General of Police respondent No. 3 was promoted out of tum as Deputy Superin- '-... E tendent of Police. On 23.10.89 respondent No. 4 was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, out of tum. It is rather curious that not a single whisper was there in the order of promotion why the said, out of tum, promotion was given. It was tried to be contended by learned counsels on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that because of j their gallantry this out of tum promotion was given. However, there is F no whisper about this in the letters giving promotion. The appellants, on the other hand, were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police as on 11.1.90. While filing the Writ Petition before the High Court, the appellants stated that they came to know of this out of turn promotion sometime on 3.8.90. G We have considered the order of the High Court. It is really a matter of great regret that inspite of several pronouncements of this • Court that the order dismissing the writ petition must be a speaking order in order to enable the persons affected to know what were the reasons which weighed with the High Court in dismissing the writ petition. This Court has observed several times that the High Court fl should not pass laconic order. In that view of the matter, we think it . .,. MOH!NDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 861 just, proper and fair to set aside the order of the High Court and send A the case back on remand to the High Court to hear out the writ peti- tion after giving opportunity to parties and recording a reasoned speaking order on merits. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. R.P. Appeal disposed of .