IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.11..2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P. No.18661 of 2006 S.Abdul Salam Sahib ...Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.9. 2. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chendnai.2. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Government Letter No.25050/UD2 (2)/05-1, dated 20.9.2005 on the file of the first respondent and consequently direct the respondents herein to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant notionally with effect from the date on which his immediate junior came to be promoted with all consequential service, attendant and monetary benefits and pay all the arrears. For Petitioner : Mrs.G. Sridevi For Respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, Addl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 20.9.2005 and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant notionally with effect from the date on which his immediate junior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ came to be promoted with all consequential service, attendant and monetary benefits and pay all the arrears. 2. The petitioner originally worked as Upper Division Accountant in the office of the second respondent. According to the petitioner, he was holding the post of Junior Assistant in the second respondent department since 1982. While considering the names of the persons to be promoted to the post of Assistant in the panel of the year 1987, the petitioner's name was not included. Therefore, he made a representation on 22.10.1987. But it is now stated by the petitioner that his name has been included in the panel of the year 1998 and subsequently, promoted as Assistant. 3. At present, the petitioner's grievance is that had his name been included in the panel of the year 1987, he would not be working under his juniors as in the present. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Special Commissioner (Town and Country Planning) in ROC No.J3/39579/99-1, dated 24.4.2001. The Secretary to Government by the letter dated 26.4.2004, rejected the petitioner's plea for including his name in the panel for the post of Assistant in the year 1987 and the reason given by the Government is that no mistake had crept in. A review was filed for reconsideration and dismissed on 20.9.2005 vide letter No.25050/UD2/(2)05.1, which is the order impugned in the present writ petition. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that no good reason has been shown as to why the name of the petitioner has not been included in the panel of the year 1987. Even though the authorities have already recommended the case of the petitioner favourably, without assigning any reason, the appeal and the review have been rejected by the Government by cryptic orders. 5. A counter has been filed by the second respondent explaining the reason for non inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel of the year 1987. A detailed explanation has been given in the counter affidavit which unfortunately does not find place in the order of the Government or in the order dismissing the review petition. 6. It is trite law that the case of the respondents cannot be improved on the basis of the counter-affidavit or the written submissions vide Mohinder Singh Gill and another – v. - The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851 and S.N.Mukherjee – v. - Union of India (1990)4 SCC 594. In para 8 of the decision in AIR 1978 SC 851 reads as follows:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J., in Gordhandas Bhani (AIR 1952 SC 16)(at p.18): "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself". Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Para 36 in (1990)4 SCC 594 reads thus:- "36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision on judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage." 7. Since the order under challenge is a non speaking order and without reasons, the same is set aside and the Government/first respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chendnai.2. +1cc to Govt.Pleader Sr 59243 VS(CO) km/30.11. WP No. 18661 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/