IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13084 of 2009 SUBHASH CHANDRA BHARDWAJ Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 12.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims having been appointed as a daily wager in the PHED in 1982 in Class- III post of Water Pump Inspector. Names of daily wagers were then forwarded for regularization. It is his case that he was also recommended as such and claimed to be regularized on a Class-III post by an order dated 22.2.2002. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 13.4.2002 as to why he and others be not reverted to the status of daily wagers. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6514 of 2002. It was heard along with several other writ applications and Letters Patent appeal. After noticing the nature of controversy, the matter was disposed by directing the authorities to refer the matter to a Committee. Paragraph 8 (b) of the judgment is relevant for the present context and is quoted hereinbelow:- “The work charge employees of Class III and IV who have been reverted to the status of daily wager will be also entitled to the considered for the purpose of benefit of the said decision for regularization.” 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that in the garb of an order of this Court for re-consideration of their reversion to the status of the daily wagers, the petitioner is now being regularized on a Class –IV post by the impugned order dated 30.11.2006, when he was appointed on a Class-III post on daily wage and was required to be considered for regularisation in the status of a Class-III employee. Learned counsel for the State initially prays for time to file counter affidavit but fairly acknowledges that the impugned order is non-reasoned and non-speaking in light of the Paragraph 8(b) extracted from the judgment of this Court and which was the stand of the State before this Court. Administrative orders amenable to judicial review are required to be reasoned. Power does not flow from the barrel of the pen but from the contents of the order. Reasons are the heart and soul of an order. An order without reasons is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears right in his submission that though he has been regularized, he is entitled to be considered regularization on a Class-III post and not on a Class –IV post. This Court is not persuaded that a counter affidavit is necessary. The order cannot be explained in a counter affidavit. Reasons have to be spelt out in the order. When the citizen comes to the Court, the authorities cannot contend that though their order is unreasoned they shall now explain to the 3 Court why they have passed such orders. This is how the State multiplies litigation and imposes unreasonable burden on this Court. The impugned order dated 30.11.2006 is set aside only to the extent that it regularize the petitioner on a Class-IV post. This Court emphasizes that the decision taken by the respondents for regularization is not open to re-consideration. It shall only be the issue of his regularization on a Class-III post and not on a Class-IV post which shall be the subject of fresh consideration and decision. Let such decision be taken by a reasoned and speaking order in light of the aforesaid discussion within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the concerned respondents. The application stands disposed off. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)