IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2774 of 2010 1. SUNITA SINGH W/O SRI ANIL KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- PARPOORWA, POST- SASARAM, P.S.- DARIGAON, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SASARAM 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER SASARAM 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER SASARAM 7. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BHADOKHARA 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BHADOKHARA, DISTT.- SASARAM 9. REKHA DEVI W/O DEV MUNI SINGH R/O VILL.- KARPOORWA, P.O.- SASARAM, P.S.- DARIGAON, DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM ----------- 2/ 26/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner questions the appellate order dated 25.6.2009 unseating her from the post of Angan Bari Sevika on the ground that she was not a resident of the area in pursuance of an appeal preferred by respondent No.9. In view of the fact that the Court proposes to remand the matter to the appellate authority for reasons to be specified hereinafter, it is not considered necessary to issue notice to respondent No.9 at this stage as she shall have full opportunity to defend the appellate order before the appellate authority in the fresh hearing. The order of the appellate authority is a quasi judicial order adjudicating the rights and claims of the - 2 - petitioner and the respondent No.9. A quasi judicial order is required to be reasoned and discussed as much as a judicial order or an administrative order is required to be reasoned and discussed. Reasons lend transparency to an order, disclose the mind of the author facilitating judicial review. Reasons also are a control on arbitrariness and leave the litigant satisfied that his case has been properly considered. Reasons are therefore the heart and soul of an order. A quasi judicial authority passing an order amenable to judicial review is required to disclose reasons rather than to confront the Court with conclusions. In absence of any reasons discussed in the order of the appellate authority dated 25.6.2009 of the materials on the basis of which the petitioner was held not to be a resident, the defence that she may have taken, the allegations that may have been made by respondent No.9 and the officials, the order becomes cryptic, unreasoned and non-speaking. The appellate order dated 25.6.2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to hear the petitioner, respondent No.9 and others and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Let such fresh order be passed preferably - 3 - within two months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before him. Pending disposal of the appeal by fresh reasoned orders, status quo as existing today with regard to the petitioner and the respondent No.9 on the post of Angan Bari Sevika shall be maintained. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)