IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7465 of 2009 Mina Kumari & Anr . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Nityanand, Adv. For Opposite Party Nos. 12 and 13:- Mr. Prabha Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. K. Ravish, Adv. ------------- 5. 27.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and for respondent nos. 12 and 13. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Trihut Division in Appeal preferred by respondent nos. 12 and 13 upsetting the order of the District Magistrate dated 12.9.2007 thereby denying appointment as Anganwari Sewika to the petitioners. The Court has heard counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. Considering that the appointment relates to the status of an Agent of the State Government, this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review shall only examine if the orders of the appellate authority suffers from any infirmity in the decision making process. Who is a better Agent to be appointed, whether the petitioners or the private respondents is for the Principal/State Government to decide and not for the Court to substitute its views. The District Magistrate on a complaint filed 2 against the appointment of respondent nos. 12 and 13 identified six deficiencies in his order. The appellate authority notices the six deficiencies but fails to record any finding with regard to the same item wise. The submission on behalf of the private respondents that the six items have been considered by the appellate authority does not convince the Court. The appellate authority notices the six items decided by the District Magistrate for illegality in the appointment. It then proceeds to consider the submission of the appellant to conclude that in this manner the District Magistrate had delivered an incorrect decision. An appellate authority concurring with the order of the original authority may not be required to give detailed reasons. But when the order is upset and the person who had won before the original authority stands to lose he has a right to know why he has lost. Why the order of the original authority has been found to be erroneous and on what grounds. The appellate authority therefore was required to discuss each of the six items separately, return a prima facie reasoned finding how and why the order of the District Magistrate suffers from 3 infirmity and then proceed to record the own finding of the appellate authority based on the materials as they may have been placed before it. The order of the appellate authority dated 25.5.2009 in its present form is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to hear the parties afresh and dispose off the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order in the manner discussed preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)