IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4922 of 2009 Dr.Kapileshwar Prasad Sinha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Manoj Kumar Ambastha & Rajeev Ranjan No. 1, Advocates For the State : AAG II ---- 2. 22.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.3.2008 declining to extend his period of study leave by further two years. The original study leave sanctioned on 11.8.1978 under Rule 14 of the Bihar Service Code was for three years with full pay and allowances. The impugned order consequently adjusts the extra period of two years against his half pay leave and extra ordinary leave. The petitioner, an employee of the Rajendra Agricultural University, was deputed in the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (hereinafter IARI) New Delhi to pursue his Ph. D. as part of the faculty up-gradation Scheme at IARI. He joined the course on 11.8.1978. The normal duration of the course was three years which he may have completed on 11.9.1981. On 20.4.1981 he requested for extension of his study leave by another two years on specified grounds spelt out in detail in the application dependant on the nature of the research work being done by him. On 20.7.1981 the IARI through its Registrar (Academic) endorsed the request in writing addressed to the respondents that the normal duration of the course was three to five years dependant on the research frame and the course work. That the petitioner’s request was bona fide supported by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee and Professor of the discipline concerned. It may therefore be considered favorably. 2 The writ petition was filed on 16.4.2009. A passage of over two years has been considered insufficient by the respondents to file a counter affidavit. No useful purpose is going to be served by adjourning the matter further for the same. If the respondents failed to realize their duty to assist the Court in quick and timely dispensation of justice the Court shall not partake in that attitude by denying timely justice to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 13.3.2008 is non speaking in nature. The request of the petitioner endorsed by the IARI was subjective in nature mentioning specified reasons. Any consideration of the request had to be done in accordance with law and not arbitrarily. It therefore necessitated application of mind to the grounds mentioned in the application. The Court is not concerned with the fact whether after consideration it would have been found acceptable or unacceptable. In the latter event reasons were required to be spelt out. The ultimate control of executive arbitrariness are reasons which also facilitate judicial review. Reasons ensure that the decision maker applied his mind to all relevant aspects and did not ignore any relevant materials vitiating the decision. An order which discloses no reasons suffers from the vice of non application of mind rendering it arbitrary. This is well settled law and a principle of administrative decision making. It is unfortunate that the respondents appear to be adopting an attitude that Court may keep setting aside its orders but they shall continue to pass orders at their absolute discretion. The litigation is wholly unwarranted generated by apathy of the respondents. The principle stands succinctly explained recently again in (2010) 9 SCC 496 (Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan) at paragraphs 14 and 15:- 3 “14. The expression “speaking order” was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of the writ of certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See pp. 1878-97, Vol. 4, Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the Report). 15. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the “inscrutable face of a sphinx”. The impugned order dated 13.3.2008 is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund any deduction made from the salary of the petitioner within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order In so far as any relief with regard to the joining time after completion of the course of five years is concerned, it is a matter to be more appropriately governed by the Service Rules of the petitioner. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 4