VASUDEO VISHWANATH SAFAF Vs. NEW EDUCATION INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for special leave involves a very short but very important and substantial question of law namely whether a Court while hearing writ petitions is under an obligation to pass a speaking order - an order recording in brief at least the reasons which weighed with the Court in determining the salient questions raised by the parties to the action while dismissing or rejecting the writ petition in order to enable the parties to know the reasons for such order, more particularly when there is provision for appeal including appeal on special leave to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India to apprise the appellate Court of the reasons of the order in order to conform the basic principles of justice and fair play and as well as the rule of law which pervades our constitutional system and also in consonance with the principles of natural justice. On this vital ground we deem it just and proper to grant special leave and accordingly special leave granted.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are inter alia that the petitioner a B. Sc. with 2nd Class honours, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1951 in the New English Institute Girls High School conducted and managed by a registered society named New Education Institute, the respondent No. 1. The petitioner was transferred in New High School in June 1953. The petitioner passed the Secondary Teacher's Certificate Examination and he also passed the Diploma of Education Examination conducted by Basic Training Centre, Dhule. This diploma is considered as equivalent to Bachelor of Education Degree for the purpose of considering suitability for additional benefits. The petitioner was promoted as supervisor in the same school in 1961 and thereafter from June, 1968 he was working as Principal till his reversion by a resolution of the managing committee of the Institute dated October 28, 1973.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the said resolution of reversion in a suit being regular Civil Suit No. 755 of 1973. The said suit was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the said decree of dismissal in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1979. The appellate Court allowed the appeal on reversing the decree, of the trial Court holding inter alia that the order of reversion was illegal and bad and the petitioner was entitled to have all the benefits and emoluments as Principal of the said institution. The opposite party No. 1 preferred a Second Appeal No. 162 of 1981 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which is pending for hearing.