ivil Appeal No 3471 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 1491990 Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No 12328 of 1990
860 GK Bansal for the Appellants
KC Bajaj Ms Kusum Chaudhary and YK Jain for the Respondent
The following Order of the Court was delivered Special leave granted
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also considered the order passed by the High Court
Admit tedly these two appellants were appointed much earlier to the appointment of respondent Nos 3 and 4 in the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police
Their appointment being on 30371 and 24471 whereas the appointment of respondent Nos 3 and 4 were on 18283
They were promoted in 1983 as Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police
On 1189 respondent Nos 3 and 4 and appellant Nos1 and 2 were promoted as Inspectors of Police and a composite Seniority List of appellants 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 161089 by order of respondent Nos 1 and 2 State of Haryana and Director General of Police respondent No 3 was promoted out of turn as Deputy Superintendent of Police
On 231089 respondent No 4 was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police out of turn
It is rather curious that not a single whisper was there in the order of promotion why the said out of turn promotion was given
It was tried to be contended by learned counsels on behalf of respondent Nos 3 and 4 that because of their gallantry this out of turn promotion was given
However there is no whisper about this in the letters giving promotion
The appellants on the other hand were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police as on 11190
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 3890
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 should not pass laconic order
In that view of the matter we think it 861 just proper and fair to set aside the order of the High Court and send the case back on remand to the High Court to hear out the writ petition after giving opportunity to parties and recording a reasoned speaking order on merits
The appeal is accordingly disposed of RP Appeal disposed of


Summary:
The first respondent and five other members of Madhya Pradesh State Civil Service challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal the selection of 14 officers of the State Civil Service for promotion to the Indian Administra tive Service as illegal on the ground that the State had wrongly calculated the anticipated number of vacancies as 7 by counting the period of 12 months under Regulation 51 of the Indian Administrative Service Appointment by promotion Regulations 1955 from December 1 1988 to November 30 1989 instead of from March 16 1989 to March 15 1990 and if the latter period was considered as the proper period for the purposes of the said Regulation the vacancies would he 11 and the select list of 22 officers would have to he prepared for which 66 officers would have to be considered and the zone of consideration would extend to the 84th officer in the seniority list since 18 of the 66 officers were ineligible under Regulation 53
On behalf of the State Government it was contended that since the meeting was first held on December 19 1988 the period of 12 months under the Regulation 51 would have to he calculated from December 1 1988 to November 30 1989 according to the previous practice of the Government which was that since the Committee met in the second fortnight of December the period was to be calculated from the 1st December 1988
The Tribunal held that neither the practice adopted by the State Government nor the interpretation placed by it on Regulation S1 was proper and that the span of 12 months would begin from March 16 777 1989 and end on March 15 1990 and directed that a Select List of 22 officers should be prepared since during the later period the estimated vacancies were 11 and that a Review Committee should be constituted to consider the cases of the applicants
Dismissing the appeal preferred by the Union of India this Court HELD 11 The wording of the Regulation 51 of the Indian Administrative Service Appointment by promotion Regulations 1955 is very clear
It says commencing from the date of preparation of the list
779F 12 In the present case admittedly the list which was prepared by the Selection Committee on December 19 1988 was not according to Regulation 51 read with Regulation 52
Since the Selection Committee had on the basis of its estimate of seven vacancies on December 19 1988 considered the cases of only 30 officers when it was required to con sider the cases of 42 officers the Union Public Service Commission had returned its recommendation and asked the Selection Committee to consider the cases of 12 more offi cers
Hence the preparation of the Select List was not complete in December 1988 and the Committee was required to convene a fresh meeting on March 16 1989 on which date alone it can be said to have prepared the select list as required by Regulation 51
Since the select list as required by Regulation 51 was for the first time prepared on March 16 1989 the period of 12 month under Regulation 51 had to be counted from that date
779G H 780A B 13 During the period of 12 months from 16th March 1989 tc 15th March 1990 the estimated vacancies were 11 and therefore select list of 22 officers has to be prepared by considering the cases in all of 66 officers and extending the zone to the 84th officer in the seniority list according to the order of seniority 18 officers out of 66 being ineligible
780C D 2
The provision of Regulation 53 speaks of the first day of January of the year in which the Selection Commit tee meets unlike the language of Regulation 51 which speaks of the date of the preparation of the list
In the present case the Committee first met of December 19 1988
Therefore for the purpose of Regulation 53 it is that date which is relevant and if that is so it is only those members of the State Civil Service who had attained the age of 54 years on January 1 1988 who would be ineligible
781C D 778 3
In the circumstances for the purposes of the Review Selection Committee to be convened the zone of considera tion will be as if the meeting was held on March 16 1989
The actual number of vacancies which will have to be consid ered is 11
781E