- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred for challenging the orders at Annexure 5 and Annexure 5/1, which are dated 6 th October,2010 and 27th December, 2011, respectively. The order at Annexure 5 dated 6th October, 2010 withdrawals the Junior Selection Grade given to the petitioner vide order dated 3 rd June, 2003 (w.e.f. 2 nd January, 1994) without giving any opportunity of being heard and without assigning any reason that how there was a breach of the reservation roster etc. The only reason given in the impugned order at Annexure 5/1 that after due deliberations the Junior Selection Grade given to the petitioner has been cancelled. This reason has not been justified in detail. Moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that had an opportunity of being heard been given to the petitioner, it would have pointed out by the petitioner to the respondents that there was no illegality in granting Junior Selection Grade which was given to the petitioner vide order dated 3rd June, 2003, which is at Annexure 1 to the memo of the present petitioner. Thus, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed as well as an order for recovery with retrospective effect has also been passed and hence, both the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 6 th October, 2010 has been passed mainly because of the fact that there cannot be a reservation roster for grant of Junior Selection Grade to the petitioner and therefore, the Junior Selection Grade, which was given to the petitioner, has been cancelled and consequently, the order has been passed at Annexure 5/1 dated 27 th December, 2011 for recovery of the amount which has been received by the petitioner.
(3.) Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the orders 2. dated 6 th October, 2010 (Annexure 5) as well as the order dated 27 th December, 2011 (Annexure 5/1) mainly on the following facts and reasons: (i) The present petitioner was appointed as Routine Clerk in the year, 1989 and subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Assistant in the year, 2007 and thereafter, the petitioner was given Junior Selection Grade vide order dated 3 rd June, 2003 vide order at Annexure 1 with effect from 2 nd January, 1994. (ii) Thus, the petitioner was getting his Junior Selection Grade as per order at Annexure 1 to the memo of the present petition and abruptly by an impugned order dated 6 th October, 2010 at Annexure 5, this Junior Selection Grade given to the petitioner has been cancelled. Looking to the impugned order at Annexure 5, it appears that the benefit which was given to the petitioner has been withdrawn without giving any opportunity of being heard and without giving any notice to the petitioner. Thus, there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order at Annexure 5. (iii) It appears from the impugned order at Annexure 5 that as per the reservation roster, the Junior Selection Grade granted to the petitioner has been cancelled after due deliberations. This is only reason given in the impugned order. Looking to this reason, it is not clear that how and under what provisions the Junior Selection Grade given to the petitioner is illegal. Had a notice been given to the petitioner, it could have replied by the petitioner that the Junior Selection Grade, which was given vide order dated 3 rd June, 2003 by order at Annexure 1 is true, correct, legal and in consonance with law. The reasons cannot be given in the counter affidavit. The reasons must be borne out from the impugned order itself otherwise, all non speaking orders will be converted into valid speaking orders by the passage of time because of filing of the counter affidavit. It has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, 1978 1 SCC 405 in para 8 as under: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that 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. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. In view of the aforesaid decision also, the reasons cannot be be given in the counter affidavit and if the impugned order is silent about the reasons, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.;