ABHA RANI Vs. REGIONAL INSPECTRESS OF GIRLS SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned, which has been challenged by the Appellant in this appeal, is the order dated 13th December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4853 of 1981 Km. Abha Rani v. Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Meerut and Ors. The order impugned before us is an exhaustive order but in the form of interim order. However, now we are governed by the judgment of this Court that if any interim order is passed within the trappings of finality, then in that case a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 can be held to be maintainable. In any event, so far as the Appellant-writ Petitioner is concerned, the matter has reached to finality. The operative part of the impugned order dated 13th December, 2010 to that extent is as follows:

(2.) So far as merit of the appeal is concerned, it rests on a very short compass arising out of a writ petition of the year 1981. The Appellant-writ Petitioner?s appointment was not approved, which was challenged by her in writ petition and by virtue of an interim order passed in the writ petition, she was continuing as a teacher in the institution concerned. Admittedly, she is working for last 30 years. The main argument was to be verified on two documents. But before going into such documents, let there be a recording of facts in this regard. The Appellant-writ Petitioner, who is a general category candidate, was given appointment on the post meant for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes category. Learned Single Judge himself observed that in the advertisement two vacancies are shown, which can not be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes category at the same time. The advertisement should specifically disclose as to which vacancy is for which reserved category. In any event, the Committee of Management has clarified the position by saying that since no candidate of the reserved category was found eligible for. appointment, the appointment for the post in question was given to the general category candidate. From the Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is available at page 61 of this special appeal, we find that this is an advertisement, which has been issued specifically mentioning that in case candidates of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes category are not available, appropriate candidate of the general category will be selected. On the basis of such advertisement, when no eligible candidate of the reserved category was found, the Appellant-writ Petitioner was given appointment and she continued in service from the date of joining i.e. 02nd February, 1981 and subsequently she further continued on the basis of an interim order dated 30th April, 1981 passed by this Court and thereafter by an order dated 18th August, 1981 her salary was also directed to be paid and as such, by now she continued in service for last 30 years. In the said writ petition, private Respondent No. 3 filed her counter-affidavit along with stay vacation application in September, 1981 but the State authority did not file any stay vacation application and only filed a counter-affidavit in December, 1981. It is well settled by now that long tenure of continuance of service should not be disturbed in view of the judgment of the 'Supreme Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., 2009 1 SCC 768 and State of Karnataka and Ors. v. M.L Kesari and Ors., 2010 8 JT 96.

(3.) The contention of the Appellant-writ Petitioner was supported by the Managing Committee of the school. However, learned Standing Counsel has contended that by order dated 4th February, 1981 the concerned Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools did not approve the selection. But we find that a cryptic order has been passed without giving name of any eligible candidate of reserved category, thereby such order is without any reason whatsoever. It is well settled that an order having civil consequences even though passed by the administrative authority must contain reasons so as to enable the aggrieved party to challenge the reasoning of the administrative authority. In the absence of reasons, no foundation can be laid down by the Petitioner and only argument remains is that the order is based upon non-application of mind. In our view, if the reasoning of an order passed against the aggrieved person is not communicated and only a communication regarding decision has been communicated it cannot be assailed by the Respondents that the grievance of a person has been decided. In our opinion, it is no order in the eyes of the law and it has no legs to stand. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, 1990 AIR(SC) 1984, the Supreme Court has already held as follows: