STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UP EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT BOARD & ORS.versusSAROJ MAURYA & ORS.

          [2024] 8 S.C.R. 733 : 2024 INSC 677

     State Project Director, UP Education for All
                Project Board & Ors.
                          v.
                Saroj Maurya & Ors.
               (Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2023)
                        21 August 2024
         [Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

                    Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the order passed by
the Single Judge and the conclusions arrived at, without furnishing
any reasons therefor.

                           Headnotes†
Judgment/order – Reasoned order – Requirement of – Division
Bench of the High Court while upholding the order passed
by the Single Judge of the High Court, concluded with an
observation that it is in agreement with the approach and
view of the Single Judge without furnishing any reasons
therefor – Sustainability:
Held: Concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable
part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement
of the procedural law – Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of
vision and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair
decision – Reasons are the real live links to the administration of
justice – There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned
judgment – Reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarify
own thoughts; communicate the reasons for the decision to the
concerned and to provide and ensure that such reasons can be
appropriately considered by the appellate/higher court – Absence
of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object – On facts,
in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment,
the same cannot be sustained – Matter remanded back to the
Division Bench for the parties to appear and address arguments
afresh – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside. [Paras 3-5]

                        Case Law Cited
CCT v. Shukla & Bros. [2010] 4 SCR 627 : (2010) 4 SCC 785 –
relied on.
734                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


                                     List of Keywords
       Reasoned order; Judge-made law; Concept of reasoned judgment;
       Rule of law; Procedural law; Clarity of thoughts; Just and fair
       decision; Administration of justice; Absence of reasons.

                                     Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2023
       From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2022 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad in SPLA No. 222 of 2022
                                Appearances for Parties
       Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G., Krishnanand Pandeya, Divyanshu
       Sahay, Yash Kirti Kumar Bharti, Advs. for the Appellants.
       Sanjoy Ghose, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi,
       Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Mohnish Nirwan, Ashok
       Kumar, Abhishek Pratap Singh, Sahil Baraik, Yash Tewari, Shashank
       Rai, Jacob Benny, Piyush Singh, Umesh Dubey, Dushyant Parashar,
       R.K. Singh, Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Tom Joseph, R. Krishnaraj, Kumar
       Gaurav, Arjun Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
                     Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                          Order
1.     The appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh has assailed the Judgment and
       Order dated 18th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High
       Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an intra court appeal1 directed
       against the common judgment and order dated 21st December, 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.


1    Special Appeal No.222 of 2022
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                                735

     State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board & Ors. v.
                             Saroj Maurya & Ors.

2.     Ms. Garima Prashad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
       for the appellants submits that there were various Government
       Orders2 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh including G.O. dated
       11th December, 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 02nd September, 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 02nd May, 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.3 The relevant paragraphs of the judgment
       are extracted hereinbelow: -
               “23. We are not venturing to comment upon the correctness
               or otherwise of the contentions of law raised before the
               High Court in the present petition, but it was certainly
               expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons
               for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at
               the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of
               knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then
               alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the
               order on appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the
               benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments
               bring things hidden and obscure to the light of reasons,


2     For short ‘the G.Os.’
3     [2010] 4 SCR 627 : (2010) 4 SCC 785
736                                                       [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                  Digital Supreme Court Reports


       reasoned judgment where the law and factual matrix of
       the case is discussed, provides lucidity and foundation for
       conclusions or exercise of judicial discretion by the courts.
       24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a
       law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton’s
       Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any
       rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as
       well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the
       observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the
       contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty,
       dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the
       questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts.
       In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and
       reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at
       the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular
       hearing, howsoever concise they may be.
       25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons
       are announced and can be weighed, the public can have
       assurance that process of correction is in place and
       working. It is the requirement of law that correction process
       of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but
       also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons
       for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence
       and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of
       justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not
       be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified duty
       imposed upon the courts to record reasons.
       26. Our procedural law and the established practice, in
       fact, imposes unqualified obligation upon the courts to
       record reasons. There is hardly any statutory provision
       under the Income Tax Act or under the Constitution itself
       requiring recording of reasons in the judgments but it is
       no more res integra and stands unequivocally settled by
       different judgments of this Court holding that the courts
       and tribunals are required to pass reasoned judgments/
       orders. In fact, Order 14 Rule 2 read with Order 20 Rule
       1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that, the court
       should record findings on each issue and such findings
       which obviously should be reasoned would form part of
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                            737

     State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board & Ors. v.
                             Saroj Maurya & Ors.

            the judgment, which in turn would be the basis for writing
            a decree of the court.
            27. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-
            made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become
            an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is
            a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of
            thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning
            is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander
            Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. [1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)] there
            are apt observations in this regard to say “failure to give
            reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are the real
            live links to the administration of justice. With respect we
            will contribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and
            purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A reasoned judgment
            is primarily written to clarify own thoughts; communicate the
            reasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and
            ensure that such reasons can be appropriately considered
            by the appellate/higher court. Absence of reasons thus
            would lead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove.”
4.     The matter is remanded back to the Division Bench for the parties
       to appear and address arguments afresh. Liberty is granted to the
       parties to place on record the subsequent developments in the matter
       so that the Division Bench is apprised of the larger perspective in
       the case and take an objective view in the matter. Liberty is granted
       to both sides to address arguments on law as also on facts afresh
       by additionally referring to the subsequent developments, if any
       besides the issues raised before the Division Bench in the light of
       the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
5.     Accordingly, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and
       the appeal filed by the appellant in the High Court is restored to
       its original position. The parties are directed to appear before the
       Roster Bench on 20th September, 2024. The interim orders passed
       by this Court shall continue to operate till the appeal is disposed of
       by the Division Bench.
6.     Needless to state that liberty is granted to the respondents and/or
       the Intervenors to seek modification/vacation of the interim orders
       passed by this Court. If such an application is moved, the same shall
       be considered and appropriate orders passed in accordance with law.
738                                                           [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


7.     The High Court is requested to try and expedite the hearing in
       the appeal that has been restored. As regards the Impleadment/
       Intervention applications filed by various private parties, learned AAG
       states that the State proposes to move before the Division Bench
       for impleading the Intervenors/applicants so that a comprehensive
       view can be taken in the matter. Liberty is granted to the impleaders/
       intervenors to participate in the proceedings before the Division Bench.
8.     The appeal is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

       Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain