IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7828 of 2009 Archana Devi @ Archana Kumari . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 05.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.1.2008 of the District Magistrate dismissing the petitioner from the post of Anganwari Sewika as affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division on 13.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the District Magistrate was in violation of the principles of natural justice. A complaint against her appointment was entertained but she was not made a party and was not heard. The District Magistrate wrongly concluded on the report of the C.D.P.O. in an ex parte manner that the dominant population according to the mapping register belonged to the general category while the petitioner was a backward category not permissible under the guidelines. Had she been permitted to present her defence she would have satisfied the authorities that the appointment was proper. Counsel for the State submitted that the defect for compliance of the principles of natural 2 justice stood complied when the petitioner has been heard in appeal. The petitioner was wrongly given preference as a widow. The appellate authority has also held satisfied that the dominant populace belonged to the general category. The thrust of the writ application is on violation of the principles of natural justice in passing an order of termination. There is no statement in the writ application on the question of fact as to which was the dominant populace for the area in question. Be that as it may, the appointment of the petitioner was made giving her preference as a widow when she had obtained lesser marks than three other candidates as noticed in the order of the District Magistrate. Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court that the three other candidates did not participate in the Aam Sabha. No clause has been pointed out from the guidelines making it mandatory for the candidate to be present during Aam Sabha for selection failing which the candidate stood disqualified and the application was not to be considered. The fact that an objection could be raised by a candidate during the Aam Sabha under Clause 6 (xi) does not divest the right of the aggrieved candidate to subsequently lodge a compliant in the manner 3 prescribed in Clause-8. The guidelines make it mandatory for a Coram to be present of the Aam Sabha failing which it has to be adjourned. The application of natural justice cannot be devoid of the facts of a case. What natural justice shall mean in a case shall be dependent on the facts of the case. If after considering the contentions, debatable questions arise, natural justice shall have to apply and the impugned order will have to be set aside for a fresh procedure to be followed. But if the Court finds that even after setting aside the order for compliance with principles of natural justice the end result shall be no different, natural justice is not a panacea for all ills. It has been observed in (2008) 11 SCC 502 (Board of Directors, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation v. K.C. Rahi) that :- “7. The principle of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. Its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain a complaint of non-compliance with the principle of natural justice, one must establish that he has been prejudiced thereby for non-compliance with principle of natural justice.” Any hearing that may have been denied to the petitioner initially has been furnished by the appellate authority. It was not a claim for appointment in 4 Government service. The consideration was for appointment as an Agent of the Principal. Because the Principal is the Government, all that the Court will examine is if there has been fairness in procedure. If the appellate order was also unreasoned and non- speaking, different considerations may have arisen. The Court finds the appellate order to be reasoned which the petitioner has not been able to demolish on facts in the writ petition. The petitioner has not presented any additional materials with regard to the dominant populace at variance with the impugned orders. The question of preference to the petitioner as a widow would have arisen only if there was parity in marks with other candidates. Once the petitioner is unable to demonstrate that she had the same marks or the higher marks than the three persons above her, the question of giving any preference to her simply does not arise. The meaning and scope of the words “preference” has been explained in 2006(6)SCC 474 at Paragraph-16 as follows:- “16. This Court has consistently held that when selection is made on the basis of merit assessed through the competitive examination and interview, preference to additional qualification would mean other things being qualitatively and quantitatively 5 equal, those having additional qualification would be preferred. It does not mean en bloc preference irrespective of inter se merit and suitability.” There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)