Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. Heard Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Government Advocate for the State/respondent/s appearing in this case in advance copy. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1. Issue notices to the respondents, returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 Set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 2 & 3. 10.3 Direct the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to re- consider the case of the petitioner for promotion by opening the sealed cover procedure with all consequential benefits within stipulated period in accordance with law. 10.4 Direct the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Stenographer Grade- II with all consequential benefits. 10.5 Issue any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.6 Cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prima facie the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 is illegal as while dismissing the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Stenographer a single line has been given, however it cannot said to be a speaking order. If any order is to be passed which will adversely affect the rights of the petitioner, the order should have been passed in a proper manner while giving details by the respondents are not considering the petitioner for grant of promotion. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon some judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Of Punjab vs Bhag Singh , reported in 2004 (1) SCC 547 , Ran Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr , reported in 2008 (4) SCC 70 , The State Of Telangana vs Union Of India And 5 Others reported in 2010 (9) SCC 486 and Live Law Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2023 (State Project Director, UP Education for all Project Board and others) respectively. 5. 5. Learned State counsel submits that though impugned order is in a very short, form however in the said order it is specifically mentioned that matter of the petitioner in respect of promotion has been considered while considering each and every point, however, after considering entire aspect of the matter his representation is not found fit for consideration as such it has been dismissed. When a pointed question was made to him to show the points upon which discussions were made and it is found that the petitioner was not found fit, he was unable to submit any thing, as such he could not be considered. 6. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Project Director UP Education for All Project Board & Ors. vs. Saroj Maurya and others, in Civil Appeal No.3465 of 2023 has passed an order dated 21 st August 2024 in which it has been categorically stated in paras 3 as below : 3. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained. In this regard, we are benefitted by the following observations made by this Court in CCT v. Shukla & Bros. (2010) 4 SCC 785 . The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow : - "23. We are not venturing to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of law raised before the High Court in the present petition, but it was certainly expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments bring things hidden and obscure to the light of reasons, reasoned judgment where the law and factual matrix of the case is discussed, provides lucidity and foundation for conclusions or exercise of judicial discretion by the courts. 24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. 24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing. howsoever concise they may be. 25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified duty imposed upon the courts to record reasons. 26. Our procedural law and the established practice, in fact, imposes unqualified obligation upon the courts to record reasons. There is hardly any statutory provision under the Income Tax Act or under the Constitution itself requiring recording of reasons in the judgments but it is no more res integra and stands unequivocally settled by different judgments of this Court holding that the courts and tribunals are required to pass reasoned judgments/orders. In fact, Order 14 Rule 2 read with Order 20 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that, the court should record findings on each issue and such findings which obviously should be reasoned would form part of the judgment, which in turn would be the basis for writing a decree of the court. 27. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of Teasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. 27. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of Teasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. (1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)) there are apt observations in this regard to say "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are the real live links to the administration of justice. With respect we will contribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarify own thoughts, communicate the reasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and ensure that such reasons can be appropriately considered by the appellate/higher court. Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove." 7. In this view of the matter and while considering the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this respect. I am of the view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the respondent No.2/The Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, with a direction to pass appropriate speaking order after considering the entire aspects of the matter and by doing so, he is further directed to decide each point separately stating that why the petitioner is not being considered for promotion. Promotion is a right of service and it should not be decided in a cursory manner, as such the petition is partly allowed. The respondent No.2/The Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in a pragmatic manner while giving a speaking order and deciding the each and every aspect within a period of two months. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is disposed of.