Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MOHINDER SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Decided
3 September 1991
Judges listed
B.C. RAY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 859 · 1991 INSC 217

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Special leave granted.

p. 860, margin B

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also considered the order passed by the High Court. Admittedly, these two' appellants were appointed much earlier to the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. T)leir appointment being on 30.3.71 and 24.4.71 whereas the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were on 18.2.83. They were pro- II1oted in 1983 as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. On 1.1.89 respond~nt Nos. 3 and 4 and appellant Nos.I and 2 were promoted as Inspectors of Police and a composite Seniority List of appellants, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other similarly appointed persons was issued · by respondent No. 1 in which appellant No. 1 was shown at serial No. 33, appellant No. 2 at serial No. 34 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were at serial numbers 46 and 47 respectively. On 16.10.89 by order of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State of Haryana and Director General of Police respondent No. 3 was promoted out of tum as Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 23.10.89 respondent No. 4 was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, out of tum. It is rather curious that not a single whisper was there in the order of promotion why the said, out of tum, promotion was given. It was tried to be contended by learned counsels on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that because of their gallantry this out of tum promotion was given. However, there is no whisper about this in the letters giving promotion. The appellants, on the other hand, were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police as on 11.1.90. While filing the Writ Petition before the High Court, the appellants stated that they came to know of this out of turn promotion sometime on 3.8.90.

p. 860, margin B

We have considered the order of the High Court. It is really a matter of great regret that inspite of several pronouncements of this Court that the order dismissing the writ petition must be a speaking order in order to enable the persons affected to know what were the reasons which weighed with the High Court in dismissing the writ petition. This Court has observed several times that the High Court should not pass laconic order. In that view of the matter, we think it

p. 860, margin G

MOH!NDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 861 just, proper and fair to set aside the order of the High Court and send the case back on remand to the High Court to hear out the writ petition after giving opportunity to parties and recording a reasoned speaking order on merits.

p. 861

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. R.P. Appeal disposed of .

p. 861, margin A