Reasoned orders are mandatory for quasi-judicial appeal rejections; a non-speaking rejection must be reconsidered after hearing.

A quasi-judicial authority must record and communicate reasons for rejecting an appeal, even where no express statutory or administrative mandate exists. The duty to give reasons arises from natural justice and enables effective judicial scrutiny; a non-speaking order cannot sustain the rejection of an appeal. On that basis, the impugned rejection was quashed, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh after affording the petitioner a hearing and issuing a reasoned decision within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the appeal by the Higher Level Screening Committee, being a quasi-judicial authority, was liable to be quashed for want of reasons and whether the appeal should be reconsidered afresh after hearing the petitioner.

Analysis: A quasi-judicial authority is required to record and communicate reasons in support of its decision. This requirement flows from the principles of natural justice and applies even where no express statutory provision or administrative instruction so provides. A non-speaking order frustrates effective judicial scrutiny and cannot sustain a decision rejecting an appeal. The impugned communication disclosed no reasons for rejection, and therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal was quashed, and the Higher Level Screening Committee was directed to reconsider the appeal afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned order within the stipulated time.

---