IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6600 of 2009 Ranju Kumari . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2/ 28/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner as an Angan Bari Sevika were terminated in violation of principles of natural justice on 25.10.2007. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner which has been rejected on 5.5.2010 during pendency of the writ application. Learned counsel submits that the order of termination being contrary to principles of natural justice, relying on 2004(2) P.L.J.R. 833 (D.B.) (Smt. Sajjan Devi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) he submits that nothing further was required to set aside the order. The defect in the original order stood remedied when the petitioner was heard on merits in appeal. Natural justice is not a panacea for all ills. Its applicability shall depend on the facts of each case. If the Court finds that even if the order is set aside on that ground and after compliance with the same the end result would be no different it may decline exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. The principle finds discussion in (2005) 6 SCC 2 454 (ONGC Ltd Vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel) at paragraph 23 as follows:- “23. It is now well settled that the High Courts and the Supreme Court while exercising their equity jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution as also Article 136 thereof may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior courts in India may not strike down even a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law.” The findings of the appellate authority is based on questions of fact that the petitioner is not a resident of the area concerned and thus not eligible for appointment. There were certain overwritings in the mapping register. The order of the appellate authority therefore cannot be stated to be based on irrelevant or frivolous grounds. The protection that may be available to a government servant where the original order of termination is illegal, incapable of being ratified in view of the constitutional provisions, shall not be a benefit available to an Angan Bari Sevika who is but an agent acting on behalf of a principal for disseminitation of government welfare schemes. No material has been placed before the Court questioning these findings of fact by the appellate authority if the Court could have 3 gone into disputed questions of fact in a writ petition. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)