IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6423 of 2010 1. Guria Kumari W/O Keshav Kumar Singh R/O Jarauli, P.O. Ratauli, P.S. Pipra, Distt.- Supaul Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Supaul 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Pipra, Distt.- Supaul 6. The Gram Panchayat, Ratauli Through Its Secretary Block- Pipra, Distt.- Supaul 7. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Ratauli Block- Pipra, Distt.- Supaul 8. The Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat Ratauli Block- Pipra, Distt.- Supaul 9. Rina Kumari W/O Sushil Kumar Singh R/O Jarauli, P.O.- Ratauli, P.S. Pipra, Distt.- Supaul 4/ 15/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of Respondent No.9 despite having entered appearance. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated 23.12.2009 unseating her from the post of Angan Bari Sevika on a complaint made by Respondent No.9 seeking her own appointment. The appeal has been rejected by the Commissioner on 23.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No.9 had made an incomplete application when she did not enclose documentary evidence in support of her educational qualifications as 2 affirmed from annexure-1(i) of the writ application while the petitioner did so. The petitioner came to be selected and was sent for training on 29.5.2007 whereafter letter of appointment was issued on 20.9.2007. Respondent No.9 made a belated complaint on 3.9.2009 with regard to alleged illegality in the selection that her application and enclosed documents had not been considered properly. The District Magistrate held that it was not possible to believe that an applicant who possessed qualifications would not have annexed it with her application and on this supposition has ruled in favour of Respondent No.9. The specific assertion of the petitioner to the contrary in paragraph-4 of the writ application has not been denied in the counter affidavit of respondents 4 and 5. The counter affidavit evades to answer the pleading which amounts to an admission applying the principle of non traverse. The submission is that the order of the District Magistrate suffers from gross perversity rendering it totally arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel for the State is unable to satisfy the Court from the materials in the counter affidavit that the District Magistrate has passed the order not on suppositions, but after examination of records, more so when the counter affidavit does not 3 deny the essential facts. The Court holds that the very language of the order of the District Magistrate is more than sufficient indication that the conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures without examination of the original records when he concludes that ‘it was not possible to believe’. What was possible or not possible had to be discerned from the original records and not on any suppositions. The appellate order suffers from the error. The impugned orders dated 23.12.2009 and 23.3.2010 are accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)