Order At the time of commencement of hearing of this matter, a substitution petition has been filed stating therein that the petitioner Krishnadeo Pathak died on 10.9.1996 and prayer has been made that in his place his son A.K. Pathak may be substituted. 2. Counsel for the respondents does not oppose the said prayer. Let the name of Krishnadeo Pathak be deleted and in his place the name of A.K. Pathak be brought on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. This Writ Petition was filed in 1989 with a prayer for quashing the order dated 16.11.1989 issued by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Nawadah Branch informing the petitioner (since deceased) that his request for appointment of his son on compassionate ground has been declined by the management. From perusal of Annexure-18 it appears that the matter was placed before the Board and the Board has taken a decision rejecting the petitioner's prayer on 18.7.1989. The decision of the Board was not served upon the petitioner but what was served upon the petitioner was a communication of the order of the Board as would appear from Annexure-18. This case has a background in the sense that previously also an application was made in the month of November, 1983 by the petitioner (since deceased) for appointment of his son on compassionate gound and as the appointment was declined a Writ Petition was filed which was numbered as C.W.J.C. no. 6301 of 1988. The said Writ Petition was heard by a learned Judge of this Court and the learned Judge hearing this matter was pleased to allow the Writ Petition only on the ground that the decision declining the prayer for compassionate appointment was not taken by the Board but was taken by the Regional Manager. The Court hearing C.W.J.C. No. 6301 of 1988 was of the view that the matter should be considered by the Board and as such the matter was directed to be placed before the Board of Directors for expeditious disposal. 5. Thereafter it appears from the Counter Affidavit filed by the Bank-Authorities that the matter was placed before the Board. From the Counter Affidavit it does not appear that the Board has passed any speaking order. From the order of the Board it appears that the only expression which the Board has used in support of its decision is "declined". 6. Thereafter it appears from the Counter Affidavit filed by the Bank-Authorities that the matter was placed before the Board. From the Counter Affidavit it does not appear that the Board has passed any speaking order. From the order of the Board it appears that the only expression which the Board has used in support of its decision is "declined". 6. Counsel appearing for the Bank has, however, submitted that the entire matter was placed before the Board by way of a note and the Board must have perused the same and then used the expression "declined".' This Court is not satisfied to the said explanation given by the counsel for the Bank. It is obvious that when by a judicial order the Board is directed to consider a matter as has been done in the instant case, it is incumbent upon the Board to pass a speaking order and the Board cannot refuse to do so and choose to couch its order with one word expression which does not show how the mind works. 7. It has been held by the Apex Court in several decisions that the requirement of passing a speaking order is a requirement which is based on principle of rule of law which is aimed at eliminating arbitrariness and highhandedness in the working of various administrative bodies carrying on quasi judicial function. Here the Board was certainly called upon to decided a lis between the parties namely claim of the petitioner (since deceased) for appointment of his son on compassionate ground. Therefore it goes without saying that the Board was called upon to pass a speaking order. For some inexplicable reason, the Board has not done so. 8. Speaking order with adequate reason always lends assurance to the person concerned and also to the Court, if such an order is challenged, that mind has been applied. Reasons, as has been aptly described, are links between material considered and the conclusion reached. But here the purported order of the Board is a non-speaking one. Therefore, this Court quashes the order and directs the Board to consider the matter once again and pass a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the said reasoned order to Ajoy Kumar Pathak, son of late Krishnadeo Pathak, Main Road, Warsaliganj, Nawadah. 9. Therefore, this Court quashes the order and directs the Board to consider the matter once again and pass a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the said reasoned order to Ajoy Kumar Pathak, son of late Krishnadeo Pathak, Main Road, Warsaliganj, Nawadah. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.