IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11030 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Kumari Kshma Kritika W/O Sanjay Kumar Prasad R/O Vill.- Dayalpur, P.S. Janta Bazar, Distt.- Saran, Pin-841206 2. Kunti Devi W/O Satyendra Kumar Bhagat R/O Vill.- Senduar, P.O.- Dayalpur, P.S.- Janta Bazar, Distt.- Saran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Service Directorate, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Welfare Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner, Saran At Chapra 5. The District Magistrate, Saran At Chapra 6. The Deputy Director, Welfare Null Saran Commissionary At Chapra 7. The Child Development Project Officer Lahladpur, Saran 8. The Mukhiya, Panchayati Raj Dayalpur, Block- Lahladpur, Distt.- Saran 9. The Then Panchayat Secretary, The Panchayati Raj Dayalpur Block- Lahladpur, Distt.- Saran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 4 14-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2010 unseating her from the post of Angan Bari Sevika. Learned counsel for the State raises a preliminary objection to the remedy of appeal available before the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Patna High Court CWJC No.11030 of 2010 (4) dt.14-11-2011 2 order of termination itself states that it has been issued on the directions of the Commissioner. No purpose shall be served by an appeal before the latter. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was heard by the Commissioner and an adjudicatory order was passed by him directing termination of the services of the petitioner. Whatever administrative directions ex parte may have been given or not given by the Commissioner are not relevant when the Commissioner exercises quasi judicial powers to decide a claim whether the termination was right or not in law. The Commissioner, exercising powers in quasi judicial capacity has to shed his administrative cloak. A quasi judicial order requiring adjudication is an entirely different matter when the claims and counter claims have to be considered, discussed under any guidelines that may be regulating the power and then a reasoned and speaking order passed. As distinct from the above, an administrative order can be one-sided only from the administrative point of view and reasoned. A quasi judicial order can never be one-sided. If the petitioner files such appeal before the Commissioner within 30 days from today, let the Commissioner exercise his quasi judicial authority to test the correctness of the order of termination of the petitioner when the order passed by him in his administrative capacity Patna High Court CWJC No.11030 of 2010 (4) dt.14-11-2011 3 cannot be taken into consideration, referred to and/or relied upon. It shall be open for the petitioner to seek interim relief before the Commissioner pending disposal of the appeal and which is expected to be disposed off preferably within a maximum period of 10 days from the date of presentation of such application for interim relief. The application stands disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)