CWP No. 115 of 2000 17.6.2008 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. for respondent No. 1. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.2. A challenge has been laid by way of this writ petition to the two orders dated 30.10.1998 and 25.6.1999 passed in T.A. No. 702/86. This case has a long history. The petitioners had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1016 of 1985. The same was transferred to the learned State Administrative Tribunal and was assigned T.A. No. 702/86. Transfer Application No. 702/86 was dismissed by the learned Administrative Tribunal for non prosecution since the steps were not taken by the petitioners for effecting service on respondents No. 3 to 39 arrayed therein. The application for recalling the order dated 30.10.1998 was also dismissed on 25.6.1999. We are of the considered opinion that T.A. No. 702/86 could proceed against respondents No. 1 & 2 without the presence of respondents No. 3 to 39. The learned Tribunal should have at least granted one more opportunity to the petitioners to take steps for effecting service on respondents No. 3 to 39 either by way of hand delivery (‘Dasti’) or through the concerned Head Office of the same department or by way of publication. In normal circumstances, we would have remitted the matter back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication. However, the lis goes back to the year 1985 and the ends of justice will be met if suitable directions are issued by this Court in the present writ petition to shorten the litigation. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-14, whereby the representation dated 6.2.1984 made by the petitioner against the seniority of HPHS Grade-II, was rejected on 17.10.1984. It is apparent from the contents of the letter dated 17.10.1984 that the same is non- speaking order. The petitioner’s request for supplying the reasons as per representation dated 14.11.1984 has not been addressed to. The representation made by the petitioner against the seniority list was required to be heard on its merits by the competent authority and the same was to be disposed of by a speaking order. As noticed above, there are no reasons assigned why the petitioner’s representation has been rejected. The assigning of reasons is sine qua non to enable the Court to see whether there is due application of mind or not by the authorities concerned. The assigning of reasons is also important, if the order has civil consequences as in the present case and the same is liable to be assailed before the competent court of law. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 6.2.1984 regarding seniority in HPHS Grade-II afresh by assigning reasons within a period of eight weeks from today. In view of these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 17, 2008. (cr)