IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5355 of 2010 Bhogendra Nath Jha, Son of Late Tara Kant Jha, resident of 3/B, Chandra Phool Appartment, Salimpurahra, Road No. 1, P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna, District- Patna. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. … Respondents ----------- 3 08.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.5.2008 cancelling the promotion granted to him on 31.7.2002 with effect from 1.1.1996 on the need based post of Deputy Registrar in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000 to15,200/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at this stage without prejudice to other rights and contentions that even if what the respondents contend in the impugned order with regard to the reworking of the need based post on 21.2.2006 as 44 from the original 54 posts when the petitioner was promoted, still the specific assertion of the petitioner in Paragraphs-14 to 16 of the writ application that posts were still available to accommodate him has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State submits from the counter affidavit that it sets out the history of the 2 identification of need based post, the errors found and the reworking of the same. The Court finds that the counter affidavit is silent with regard to the specific assertions of the petitioner in the writ application noticed hereinabove. There is a presumption that the deponent has carefully read the contents of the writ application before affirming the counter affidavit. Either the deponent has not read and understood the contents of the writ petition or he did not consider it necessary to read and understand the same. A counter affidavit is not an empty formality. The seriousness of a proceeding before the Court has not been appreciated. The litigant comes to the Court with a perceived sense of injustice based on his own assessment of his claims. It may be right or it may be wrong. If his claims are wrong and his perception of injustice is incorrect leading to denial of relief, he has a right to know why his perception was erroneous. The respondents cannot refuse to answer his perceived grievances and tell him that he was not entitled to relief on other grounds. A litigant who wins a case may not be much interested in knowing why he has won. Victory by itself is sufficient. The institution stands to test when 3 the person loosing has to be told the reasons and he has a right to it. The respondents have a constitutional obligation to do so and the Court a constitutional duty to enforce it. The Court considers that ground alone sufficient to set aside the order dated 20.5.2008 and remand the matter to respondent no. 1 for a fresh decision in accordance with law by a reasoned and discussed order facilitating a judicial review within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Considering the casual manner in which respondents have chosen not only to deal with the petitioner but even in a proceeding before the Court, directions are given to grant him a personal hearing before any such orders are passed, and to do so in his presence. The writ application stands allowed. Md. Ibrarul ( Navin Sinha, J.)