Disposed¶12

Samarendu Mukherjee v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC9 Jun 2026WP.CT/53/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Duty to record reasons; non-speaking order; quasi-judicial authority; judicial review under Article 226/227; Tribunal order set aside for want of reasons; M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 applied; promotion as Postman through LDCE; O.A. No. 350/482/2023 restored; expedition within 60 days; no opinion on merits. Coram: Sujoy Paul, CJ. (author) and Partha Sarathi Sen, J. Decision date: 09.06.2026. Case: WP.CT 53 of 2025 (Samarendu Mukherjee v. The Union of India & Ors.).

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order dated 20.12.2024 set aside; O.A. No. 350/482/2023 restored to the file of the Tribunal with a request to expedite, hear and decide the matter within 60 days from production of a copy of the order; petition disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits. ¶12

Samarendu Mukherjee Vs Union of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal dismissing the O.A. is vitiated as a non-speaking order rendered without assignment of reasons (findings confined to paragraphs 13 and 14) and therefore liable to be set aside.

¶5

Court's answer

Reasons are the heartbeat of conclusions; administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial authorities are expected to assign reasons for the conclusions reached by them.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The findings in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be findings based on 'reasons'; the Tribunal did not disclose why it found force in the respondents' submission.

¶10

Key takeaways

In the absence of reasons, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.ratio¶11
The impugned order suffers from serious procedural impropriety and is set aside; O.A. No. 350/482/2023 is restored to its original number and file before the Tribunal.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 — Writ petition against order dated 20.12.2024 of the Tribunal dismissing O.A. No. 350/482/2023 (petitioner's claim for promotion as 'Postman' on success in L.D.C.E.) — Findings confined to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order, i.e., a non-speaking order without assignment of reasons — Reasons are the heartbeat of conclusions; administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial authorities must assign reasons (applying M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496) — Absence of reasons renders the Tribunal's conclusion incapable of sustaining judicial scrutiny; impugned order suffers serious procedural impropriety and is set aside — O.A. restored to its original number and file before the Tribunal, which is requested to hear and decide the matter within 60 days — Petition disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶1

09.06.2026 Item No.17 Ct. No.1 KS

¶2

WP.CT 53 of 2025

¶3

Samarendu Mukherjee

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The Union of India & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Allen Felix

¶7

…..For the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma

¶9

Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee

¶10

…..For the Union of India

¶11

DICTATED BY SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:

¶12

Parties are represented through their respective

¶13

learned counsel.

¶14

With the consent of the parties, matter is finally heard.

¶15

The challenge is mounted in this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to the order dated 20.12.2024 [in Prayer clause wrongly mentioned as ’12.12.2024’ in O.A. No.350/482/2023 (Kolkata)].

¶16

The petitioner filed the said O.A. seeking his promotion as ‘Postman’ because he succeeded in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (L.D.C.E.). The Tribunal after completion of pleadings, heard the parties and passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2024.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the impugned order of the Tribunal urged that up to paragraph 11 of the impugned order, the

¶18

¶19

learned Tribunal has mentioned the facts of the case and the rival contentions advanced at the bar. Whatever findings are given, mentioned in paragraphs 13 and 14 only. By criticizing the said paragraphs, it is urged that there is no application of mind and without assigning any reason the Tribunal has rejected the original application. Hence, the said order may be interfered with.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and urged that there is no fault in the order of the Tribunal, which warrants interference by this Court.

¶21

We have heard the parties at length.

¶22

For the purpose of clarity, we deem it proper to reproduce the relevant paragraphs where Tribunal has given ‘findings’. Paragraphs 13 to 14 reads as thus:-

¶23

“13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

¶24

14. After giving in-depth consideration to the arguments advanced by parties we find much force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents and as the balance of convenience lies with the Respondents, the instant O.A. deserves no merit. In the result, this OA stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶25

We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that before paragraph 13 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded the facts of the case and rival contentions of the

¶26

¶27

parties. The so-called findings are only recorded in paragraph 13 and 14, which are reproduced above.

¶28

We are constrained to hold that the said findings by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a finding based on ‘reasons’. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusion. It is expected from administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial authorities to assign reasons for the conclusions reached by it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized this in the case of M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 . The relevant paragraphs reads as thus:-

¶29

“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

¶30

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

¶31

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

¶32

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

¶33

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasijudicial or even administrative power.

¶34

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶35

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

¶36

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

¶37

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of

¶38

¶39

reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

¶40

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

¶41

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

¶42

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

¶43

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

¶44

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decisionmakers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)

¶45

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires,

¶46

“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”.

¶47

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.”

¶48

(Emphasis supplied.)

¶49

If paragraphs 13 and 14 mentioned above are examined on the anvil of principles laid down in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , it will be clear like noonday that Tribunal has not assigned

¶50

¶51

any reason as to why it did not find force in the argument of applicant and found substance in the argument of the respondent. In absence of any reason, the conclusion arrived at by Tribunal cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The impugned order suffers from serious procedural impropriety and accordingly, set aside. The O.A. 350/482/2023 is restored to its original number and file before the Tribunal. Since, the matter pertains to promotion/induction, learned Tribunal is requested to expedite the matter, hear and decide the matter within 60 days from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶52

Accordingly, petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶53

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

¶54

(SUJOY PAUL, CJ.)

¶55

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Samarendu Mukherjee v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samarendu Mukherjee v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prasun Kumar Das Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bankim Nandi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Koyel Samanta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sukdev Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Subrata Das Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Nita Nandi (Mani) Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.