AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—The appointment of the Petitioner, as Assistant Teacher in the 5th Respondent, a Linguistic Minority Institution, admitted to grant-in-aid from the academic year 1984-85, was after permission of the 4th Respondent, Deputy Director, Public Instructions. The 3rd Respondent, Director of Primary Education, addressed a letter seeking a response from the 5th Respondent, Institution, to apply for approval of Petitioner''s appointment. It is the assertion of the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent, State of Karnataka, by letter dt. 14/11/03, approved the Petitioner''s appointment and thereafter by endorsement dt. 25/3/04, rejected the approval of Petitioner''s appointment as Assistant Teacher, followed by yet another endorsement dt. 3/4/2010 to the same effect. Hence this Writ Petition.
A perusal of Annex.A dt. 3/4/2010 and endorsement dt. 25/3/2004, Annex.B, do not disclose reasons for rejection, except to state that due to some government orders, the approval of Petitioner''s appointment is rejected.
Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure. Reasons are harbinger between the mind of maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at. They substitute subjectivity with objectivity. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice, as held by the Supreme Court in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and Another, .
In that view of the matter, the letter - Annex.A and the endorsement - Annex.B, are quashed. Liberty is reserved to the Respondents to pass orders strictly in accordance with law by assigning reasons, findings and conclusions.