ORDER 1. With the consent, finally heard. 2. This is second visit of the petitioners to this Court. Earlier they filed writ petition for challenging the order of their deregularization. This Court on 16.9.2005 allowed the said petitions and order of de-regularization (Annexure P-5 therein) was set aside. The respondents were given liberty to hear the petitioners and pass fresh order in accordance with law. In turn, the petitioners’ cases were considered and they were given personal hearing. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 12.2.2009 was passed. This order is called in question. 3. Shri Rawat submits that this order is a non-speaking and arbitrary order which needs to be interferred with. 4. Prayer is opposed by Shri Bansal, Deputy Government Advocate. 5. Shri Bansal relied on various paragraphs of the return. He placed reliance on Annexure R-2 to contend that petitioners were given personal hearing. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Annexure R-2 shows that petitioners appeared before the respondents on 14.2.2007. They were given personal hearing. Thereafter, the final order was required to be passed by the Director. The Director rejected the claim by assigning following reasons : ^^izkFkhZ ds i{k dks lquk x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk lquokbZ ds le; dksbZ Hkh rF;kRed rF; izLrqr ugh fd, x,A fof/kor tk¡p@leh{kk esa oknh ds i{k dks lquus ,oa e/; izns’k ‘kklu] dkfeZd] iz’kklfud lq/kkj ,oa izf’k{k.k foHkkx ds fn’kk funsZ’k ds vuq:i u gksus ds dkj.k ekU; ;ksX; ugh ik;k x;kA vr% izdj.k dh leh{kk rFkk ijh{k.k mijkar ;kfpdkdrkZ dh orZeku esa in fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fu;fefrdj.k ugh fd;k tk ldrkA vr% izdj.k dh iw.kZ leh{kk mijkUr iwoZ esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 26-6-1999 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS] ,oa Hkfo”; esa in fjDrrk dh fLFkfr esa fu;ekuqlkj fu;fefrdj.k ij vkids uke ij fopkj fd;k tk,xk^^A (Emphasis supplied) 7. A plain reading of the order shows that it does not contain any justifiable reason. A bald finding is given that the petitioners’ case is not in consonance with the guidelines of M.P. Personnel Administrative Reforms and Training Department. It is not mentioned as to what is the deficiency and where petitioners are lacking. Putting it differently, the conclusions arrived at are not founded upon any reasons. Reasons are heart beats of conclusions. In absence of reasons, conclusions cannot be permitted to stand. It is not mentioned as to what is the deficiency and where petitioners are lacking. Putting it differently, the conclusions arrived at are not founded upon any reasons. Reasons are heart beats of conclusions. In absence of reasons, conclusions cannot be permitted to stand. Necessity to assign reason is emphasized by the Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan [(2010)9 SCC 496], in the following words : “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (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. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (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. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life-blood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (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. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (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. (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. (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. (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 decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (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. (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”. 8. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside because it does not contain any reason for not treating the petitioners as fit for regularization. 9. Resultantly, the order dated 12.2.2009 (Annexures P-1(A), P-1(B), P-1(C) and P-1(D) are set aside. The respondents are given liberty to rehear the petitioners and pass fresh order in accordance with law. The respondents shall pay Rs.2000/- as cost to each of the petitioners. Cost is imposed because respondents compelled the petitioners to file this avoidable petition. They also failed to assign reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 10. Petition is allowed. No cost.