S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the judgment and Order dated 18-9-1998 passed by the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 51057 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of observing that no orders are necessary to be passed on the o. A. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein was recruited as temporary U. D. Stenographer on 22-3-1978. The Public Service Commission (PSC) notified vacancies for recruitment to the category of U. D. Stenographers in the said year. Pursuant to the notification of the psc, the petitioner applied for appointment to the category of U. D. Stenographers. He was selected for the said post and his name was recommended for verification of his antecedents, whereafter he was allotted to the Finance and Planning (Finance Wing) department for the purpose of regular recruitment as U. D. Stenographer. The authorization for such recruitment was received and entertained by the Finance and Planning (Fin. Wing) Department on 29-3-1979. Allegedly, his services as U. D. Stenographer were regularised with effect from 22-3-1978 and, as such, according to him, his service in the said category has to be counted from that date. ( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent was appointed as steno-Typist w. e. f 3-10-1972 on temporary basis. He was promoted temporarily as u. D. Stenographer on 1-8-1975. In the year 1975, a Special Qualifying Test was conducted by the Public Service commission for regular appointment and he having passed the said test had been selected for appointment as steno-typist on regular basis and his services as such were regularised w. e. f. 29-1-1977. His probation as Steno-typist was declared to have been satisfactorily completed w. e. f. 21-2-1979 and was confirmed as Steno-typist w. e. f. 10-9-1980. His name was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the category of U. D. Stenographers on 2-4-1979 and he was regularly appointed as such on 4-4-1979 and his services in the said category were regularised from that date. ( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent was working temporarily as Typist in Finance department w. e. f 3-10-1972 and he was promoted as U. D. Stenographer on 11-7-1975. He also passed the Special qualifying Test and his services were regularised w. e. f. 29-1-1977. ( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent was working temporarily as Typist in Finance department w. e. f 3-10-1972 and he was promoted as U. D. Stenographer on 11-7-1975. He also passed the Special qualifying Test and his services were regularised w. e. f. 29-1-1977. His probation was declared to have been satisfactorily completed w. e. f. 29-1-1979 whereafter he was promoted temporarily as U. D. Stenographer w. e. f. 4-4-1979. His services as such were also regularised with effect from the said date. ( 5 ) THE controversy involved in this writ petition is as regards the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in the category of U. D. Stenographers. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondents 2 and 3 filed representations before the appropriate authority as regards the regularization of the services of the petitioner herein with effect from 22-3-1978 in the category of U. D. Stenographers. By reason of the order impugned before the Tribunal, the said representations were allowed. Before the learned Tribunal as also before us it was submitted that as the services of the petitioner had been regularised w. e. f 22-3-1978 in the category of U. D. Stenographers, he was senior to the respondents 2 and 3. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would urge that the order impugned before the Tribunal had been passed behind the back of the petitioner. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to the submissions made in paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit. ( 8 ) MR. J. R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would urge that once the respondents completed the period of probation in 1975 and when vacancies became available on 22-2-1979 and 13-1-1979, their cases for promotion as U. D. Stenographers ought to have been considered from the said dates. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had no jurisdiction to regularise the services of direct recruits with retrospective effect. The learned Counsel would further submit that at this stage, the seniority cannot be challenged particularly when the seniority list was published in 1979 and was also revised on 20-11-1979. The learned Counsel would urge that the proceedings dated 22-6-1990 rejecting the representation of the petitioner has not been challenged. The learned Counsel would further submit that at this stage, the seniority cannot be challenged particularly when the seniority list was published in 1979 and was also revised on 20-11-1979. The learned Counsel would urge that the proceedings dated 22-6-1990 rejecting the representation of the petitioner has not been challenged. The said order reads thus: with reference to the representations of Sri Y. Ramakrishna and sri Venkateswara Rao, Section Officers for revision of seniority in the category of U. D. Stenos, they are informed that their representations have been examined by the Government carefully, and it is found that the impugned orders issued in G. O. Rt. No. 58 Finance and Plg. (FW. O. P. I) dept. dt. 20-11-1979 were based on rules and eligibility. The inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits should be with reference to their date of appointment and the dates of appointment of sri V. Umamaheswara Rao, sri Y. Ramakrishna and sri K. Venkateswara Rao (Direct recruits ). The fact that the promotion of Sri V. Uma Maheswara Rao and sri M. V. R. Prasad Rao took place just a few days before the issue of appointment orders of the petitioner do entitle the petitioners to claim the seniority over and above sri V. Umamaheswara Rao and sri M. V. R. Prasada Rao. On the basis of available facts there is no justification for reopening the orders already issued in G. O. Rt. No. 58, Fin. and Plg. (FW. OP. I) Dept. dated 20-11-1979. ( 9 ) THE following statement made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 may be quoted:"the petitioner was received the o. O. No. 58, Finance and Planning (FW. OP. I) Department dated 20-11-1979 on 26-11-79 wherein his date of regularization was shown as 5-4-1979. " ( 10 ) IN this case, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the matter on merits. Questions of some importance, as indicated hereinbefore, were raised before the learned tribunal. ( 11 ) THE learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has misdirected itself in passing the impugned order in so far as it failed to assign any reasons in support of the said order. The principles of natural justice demands that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies must assign reasons in support of their orders particularly when such orders are subject to appeal or judicial review. The principles of natural justice demands that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies must assign reasons in support of their orders particularly when such orders are subject to appeal or judicial review. Unless and until the reasons are assigned, it would not be possible for the Court exercising the power of judicial review to ascertain as to what impelled the Tribunal or the authority to pass order impugned before it. ( 12 ) IN Siemens Engineering Co. vs. Union of india, the Apex Court held: it is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reason in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. ( 13 ) THE said rule would apply to the judicial orders also. Reason is the soul of the order. The assignment of reason also forms part of judicial discipline. ( 14 ) IN that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained which is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.