IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1488 of 2010 1. SUNITA KUMARI W/O KAMLESH CHAUDHARY R/O VILL- RUPNARAYANPUR, P.O. KARNAUTI, P.S. MAHNAR, DISTT. VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER MAHNAR, DISTT. VAISHALI 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER I.C.D.S. PROJECT, MAHNAR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. THE MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, KARNAUTI, P.S. MAHNAR, DISTT. VAISHALI 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, KARNAUTI, P.S. MAHNAR, DISTT. VAISHALI 7. SMT. SITA KUMARI W/O HARISH CHANDRA RAI R/O VILL & P.O. KARNAUTI, P.S. MAHNAR, DISTT. VAISHALI 8. THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2/ 29/07/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated 22.8.2009 dismissing the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika in Case No.9/09. The petitioner was appointed as an Angan Bari Sevika in the Mahnar Block Integrated Child Development Scheme Project at centre No.114. Her appointment came to be questioned by respondent No.7. The District Magistrate by his order dated 12.4.2008 set aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed fresh appointment to be made in accordance with law. The - 2 - petitioner was not noticed or heard. The petitioner questioned the order of the District Magistrate before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by his order 5.1.2009 upheld the objection of the petitioner that the order on the application of respondent No.7 came to be passed ex parte against the petitioner and remanded the matter to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate disposed off the matter afresh by the impugned order holding that respondent No.7 had higher marks than the petitioner. The fact that the father-in-law of respondent No.7 was a beneficiary of pension was inconsequential and did not make respondent No.7 ineligible for appointment on the ground that the father-in-law did not fall in the category of prohibited relationships provided for in departmental letter No.1068 dated 14.5.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Magistrate having directed for fresh selection by his earlier order dated 12.4.2008 could not have passed any order for the appointment of respondent No.7. The only option available to the District Magistrate was to proceed for fresh selection after remand. The findings of the District Magistrate are not assailed. On the second issue it was urged that the issue of ineligibility of respondent No.7, her name not figuring in the voter list of the village concerned, absence - 3 - of any residential certificate proof were issues raised before the District Magistrate after remand, but which have not been considered in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order to urge that it merited no interference. An order of remand may be limited, conditional or open. In the former two cases, the entire order does not stand vitiated except to the extent directed. The position, however, is fundamentally different in the third category. Applying the doctrine of merger, the Commissioner rightly noticed that the order of the District Magistrate dated 12.4.2008 was contrary to the basic tenets of the principles of natural justice. It is trite law that an order in violation of principles of natural justice passed behind the back of a person whom it visits with consequences is a nullity and a still born child that never comes into existence. The order of the District Magistrate dated 12.4.2008, on which much stress has been laid to urge that the District Magistrate under the impugned order had no option but to direct fresh selection, remained no more in existence. It stood wiped out. The District Magistrate rightly therefore proceeded to apply his mind afresh to the issues. The two grounds, respondent No.7 having higher marks and her - 4 - father-in-law not being in a prohibited category of relationship, are facts not disputed by the petitioner. Recitals in the order-sheet of a subordinate authority during judicial review are sacrosanct. It does not appear from the impugned order that the petitioner had raised other issues of eligibility of respondent No.7. The writ application also does not plead any such fact that the District Magistrate had not considered all the submissions and challenges pleaded on behalf of the petitioner. This matter was partially heard on the 27th of July, 2010 this Court had put this specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner and permitted him to place a copy of the application filed either before the Commissioner or at the stage of passing the impugned order before the District Magistrate to satisfy this Court of the issue of ineligibility of respondent No.7 on additional grounds was raised. Today when the matter is taken up a supplementary affidavit has been filed making a bald assertion that the petitioner had filed certain documents before the District Magistrate which has not been considered. The pleadings in paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit are extremely vague. There is no specific and categoric statement that additional issues voters list and residential certificate were specifically - 5 - raised before the Commissioner. In a writ petition the evidence that surfaces is primarily in the nature of documents. No copy of the application filed before the Commissioner or the Collector has been placed on record with the supplementary affidavit. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.8.2009. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)