STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR Vs. SAROJ MORYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh has assailed the Judgment and Order dtd. 18/4/2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an intra court appeal[Special Appeal No.222 of 2022]directed against the common judgment and order dtd. 21/12/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. We have perused the impugned judgment and find that except for placing on record the case of the writ petitioners and the respondents followed by the findings returned by the learned Single Judge and the conclusions arrived at, on its own the Division Bench has not expressed its view on the issues raised before it. The judgment simply concludes with an observation that the Division Bench is in agreement with the approach and view of the learned Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor.

(2.) Ms. Garima Prashad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for REPORTABLE the appellants submits that there were various Government Orders[For short 'the G.Os.']issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh including G.O. dtd. 11/12/2020 that was brought to the notice of the Division Bench but has not been dealt with at all. She states that much water has flown under the bridge by now and there are further G.Os. and Circulars issued by the appellants which ought to have been taken into consideration and without any application of mind, the impugned judgment has been passed simply upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge without dealing with the submissions made by the either side. She further states that in the meantime, in view of the order passed by this Court on 2/9/2022 when notice was issued and it was directed that there shall be a stay on the impugned order as well as any directions passed in the contempt petition during the pendency of the matter, which order was subsequently made absolute on 2/5/2023 with a clarification that the appointments made by the appellants will be subject to final orders in the appeal, the appellant-State has made subsequent appointments of teachers and is continuing to do so.

(3.) We are of the opinion that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained. In this regard, we are benefitted by the following observations made by this Court in CCT v. Shukla & Bros.[(2010) 4 SCC 785],.