IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14179 of 2003 ARVIND KUMAR SINHA s/o late Bisheshwar Prasad, resident of Ram Sahay Lane, Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj,Patna-800006. Versus 1.RESERVE BANK OF INDIA through its Governor, Central Office, Mumbai. 2. The Principal Chief General Manager, DAPM, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai. 3. The Chief General Manager, HRDD,Reserve Bank of India,Central Office, Mumbai. 4. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Patna. 5. Manager (Personnel), Reserve Bank of India,Patna. 6. Assistant General Manager (Admn.),Reserve Bank of India,Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Mr. Anand Mohan Verma and Mr. Pravin Kumar. For the RBI :Mr. K.K.Jha. 5 7.8.09 Petitioner is an officer in Reserve Bank of India. He appears to be a Chess Player of International level. He joined the services of Reserve Bank of India in the year 1984. Under the Ministry of Human Resources, certain incentives for out of turn promotion are available to Government employees, which includes the employees of the Reserve Bank of India. These out of turn promotions are given because of exceptional merits in sports are concerned. Petitioner participated in the Commonwealth International Chess Championship in 1986. At that time , he was working in Reserve Bank of India. It is the matter to be enquired into as to who sponsored him to the International sports, who sent him in London, who granted him leave for the said international sport as at that time he was a permanent officer in Reserve Bank of India. He became 7th in the Commonwealth Chess Championship representing India. He thereafter, for a considerable time, represented the State of Bihar in various national competitions. - 2 - Petitioner accordingly made an application for being given out of turn promotion. Under the said rules, the same has to be decided by the Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India but in the case of petitioner, the Regional Director sent it to the Head Office, Bombay, who rejected the same without any reason and that has brought the petitioner to this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, with their consent, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The order refusing to grant petitioner benefit of out of turn promotion admittedly does not contain any reason. It was rejected. They had sought certain clarification from the petitioner, which the petitioner made. In my view that itself is sufficient to set aside the said order. It is too late in the day to suggest that where a person claims a right that right can be negatived by non speaking order. Every body is to get first is the first reason. Now, in the counter affidavit reasons are given . First of all I can say if what was stated in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & anr. – versus – The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & ors. since reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 where the Apex Court held thus : “ When a statutory functionary makes an 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. “ Secondly, even in the counter affidavit a part from saying - 3 - that the certificates and testimonials submitted by the petitioner were not sufficient, in what manner they were not sufficient has not stated. In that view of the matter, I am left with no option but to set aside the decision of the Reserve Bank of India refusing to give out of turn promotion to the petitioner on grounds “ exceptional achievement” in sports and direct the Regional Director, who is the competent authority or any authority, which is competent to decide this issue within the Reserve Bank of India to re-decide the issue objectively by a speaking order. They may seek whatever clarification that they require from the petitioner. I must clarify one thing that merely because the petitioner has already been promoted to the post to which he was otherwise entitled as a out of turn promotion will not deny petitioner out of turn promotion. If he is granted the right of getting out of turn promotion then the effect would be that a person promoted would be deemed to be preponed in time to the date of his entitlement. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s application is set aside. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)