IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14128 of 2009 1. MANORMA KUMARI W/O SURAJ NARAYAN SAHU VILL- EKHARI, P.O. EKHARI, P.S. LADANIA, DISTT. MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DIRECTORATE, INDIRA BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR MADHUBANI 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK LADANIA, DISTT. MADHUBANI 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (C.D.P.O.) LADANIA, P.S. & ANCHAL- LADANIA, DISTT. MADHUBANI 7. SRI SURYA NARAYAN SINGH, EX-MKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT EKHARI P.S. LADANIA, DISTT. MADHUBANI 8. SRI HARI NANDAN MANDAL, GRAM PANCHAYAT SEVAK EKHARI, P.S. LADANIA, DISTT. MADHUBANI 9. GITA KUMARI W/O UPENDRA SAHU R/O EKHARI, P.O. EKHARI, P.S. LADANIA, DISTT. MADHUBANI 10. COMMISSIONER DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA ----------- 2/ 07/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed as an Angan Bari Sevika. The complaint of one Gita Kumari has led to her ouster affirmed by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 2.2.2008 and, in turn, confirmed by the Commissioner, vide order dated 24.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of hearing before the District Magistrate a factual report was called for from the C.D.P.O. which came to be submitted on 12.3.3009. He, in fact, stated that only three candidates- one Renu Kumari, Rekha Kumari and the present petitioner had appeared before the “Aam Sabha”. The complainant Gita Kumari had never appeared. This aspect has 2 completely been overlooked by the District Magistrate. When the petitioner raised this factual issue specifically before the Commissioner and which has adequately been noticed in the second paragraph of the order of the Commissioner, the Commissioner also chooses to gloss over this vital material and proceeds on other issue. Gita Kumari, therefore, has no locus at all to question the appointment of the petitioner. The submission in law is that the District Magistrate and the Commissioner while deciding the matter have ignored all relevant matters and documents and have failed to discuss while taking the impugned decision. Failure to fulfil the requirement to take into consideration all necessary relevant materials in a decision making process by a quasi judicial person renders the order arbitrary. This Court is satisfied prima facie that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. This would have required issuance of notice to private respondent No.9, the complainant, and stayed the operation of the impugned orders till the disposal of the writ application. At this stage, this Court cannot direct reinstatement of the petitioner as that would virtually amount to allowing the writ petition and granting the 3 final relief. The result would be that no appointment can be made by the authorities on the post that the petitioner had been removed from so long as the writ petition is not disposed. The burden of litigations under which this Court is working, presently it is bearing that writ petitions of 2002-2003. This writ petition will therefore come up for hearing six to seven years later. The Court cannot take judicial notice of the fact that it may affect the Government welfare scheme in absence of an appropriate appointment on the post. In that view of the matter, Learned counsel for the State assisting the Court fairly submitted that perhaps the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh orders after hearing respondent No.9 and others afresh. The impugned orders of the Commissioner and the District Magistrate are accordingly set aside. This shall not result in the reinstatement of the petitioner automatically. The Commissioner is required to decide the matter afresh in light of the aforesaid discussions after hearing all concerned including respondent No.9. No appointment shall be made on the post from which the petitioner has been ousted till such fresh decision by the Commissioner. It is now for the Commissioner to decide how expeditiously he wants to proceed so that Government welfare schemes are not 4 hampered. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)