Caste Certificate | Rejection Put Up On Department Website Recording Only 'Lack Of Evidence' Is Not A 'Speaking Order': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the display of a rejection letter on the official website of the department, recording nothing beyond lack of evidence, is not a 'speaking order' and cannot sustain the rejection of an application for a caste certificate. It added that an order which is not communicated to the person concerned does not become effective.Further, it held that the duty to record reasons binds an administrative authority as much as a quasi-judicial one.The petitioners had applied for caste certificates under Rules 3, 4 and 10 of the Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2011, under which the issuance of caste, income and domicile certificates is a guaranteed public service to be rendered to the people of the State within a stipulated time.The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Siddharth Nandan held,“.. the display of the rejection letter on the official website of the Government, cannot be said to be a ''speaking order'' and as such the only so called 'reason' which is reflected from the rejection order dated 23.02.2026 i.e. 'साक्ष्य अभाव' is as vague as it can be; and as such does not meet the test for 'speaking order', which is a prerequisite, even in case of an administrative order or a quasi-judicial order.”Petitioners, a brother and sister permanently resident in District Mathura since birth, claimed to belong to the Scheduled Caste 'Dhangar'. With their application before the Tahsildar they filed their Aadhaar cards, the family register, a letter of the village Pradhan and a school leaving certificate, and claimed the benefit of a Government Order dated 24th January 2019 issued by way of clarification for the issuance of caste certificates to persons of that caste. The application was rejected on 23rd February 2026.Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that no reasons had been assigned and no report made available to them, the rejection having been put up on the official website carrying the single expression 'साक्ष्य अभाव'. No order of rejection having been communicated to them at all, it was argued that there was no reasoned order in the eyes of law.The Additional Chief Standing Counsel accepted that no specific reason had been recorded in the impugned order, but submitted that the rejection letter showed that evidence of the petitioners' claim to the 'Dhangar' caste had not been furnished. He submitted that there was no requirement of giving reasons, and the decision rested on a report called for by the revenue department before the application was taken up.The Court framed two questions: whether an applicant must be heard and given reasons before an administrative authority decides against him; and whether, absent a speaking order, a decision displayed on the department's official website can be sustained.On the first question, the Court held that an order unsupported by reasons cannot stand. It observed that a citizen turns to judicial and administrative authorities alike to redress grievances and enforce rights.“it becomes more imperative from the said point of view that the reasons must always be subscribed to demonstrate the fairness in the process and to show that there was no arbitrariness in arriving at a decision.”The Court held that the rejection also failed on the principle of legitimate expectation as reasons are owed to an applicant both to enable an appeal and to show that the order was passed fairly. “It is writ large that no opportunity was also given to the petitioners by way of a personal hearing or the documents in the form of an alleged report was also not provided to them, so that they could have either removed the deficiencies or filed an objection.”On the second question, the Court noted the practice of officers recording their views in departmental files. Relying on Apex Court's decisions in Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Lakshminarayan R Bhattad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs. Manju Jain, the Court held that such a note or expression of opinion creates no enforceable right, and that an order becomes final and effective only on being communicated to the person concerned. Holding that an uncommunicated order is a dead letter, and that the rejection recorded insufficiency of evidence without specifying what evidence was lacking, the Court set aside the rejection order dated 23.02.2026.“This Court also finds that the roster is flooded with similar writ petitions on daily basis, and no reasons of whatsoever nature is reflected from the rejection letters/orders, which are only made available on the official website of the Department; and apart from the same, neither any 'speaking order' or any report is made available to the petitioners; and as such the petitioners are handicapped while filing an appeal, as they are neither having reasons for the rejection nor been given the grounds, based on which they could prefer the appeal; and as such...

Caste Certificate | Rejection Put Up On Department Website Recording Only 'Lack Of Evidence' Is Not A 'Speaking Order': Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Caste Certificate | Rejection Put Up On Department Website Recording Only 'Lack Of Evidence' Is Not A 'Speaking Order': Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers