IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3037 of 2009 ***** Manorama Devi wife of Harendra Singh @ Harendra Kumar Singh, resident of village- Bahadurpur Tola, P.S. Garhani, District-Bhojpur. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Directorate, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. 6. The District Programme Officer, Bhojpur, Ara. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Garhani, District Bhojpur. 8. Meena Devi wife of Dharmendra Kumar, resident of village- Bahadurpur Tola, P.O. Bagawan, P.S. Agiaon(G), Anchal Garahani, District Bhojpur. ….. …. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. R.R.Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ramchandra Pd. Bharti, Standing Counsel XIV Mr. S.K.Singh, Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel XIV ------------- 2. 5.3.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. Earlier the petitioner was removed on certain findings having been recorded against her by the then District Magistrate of Bhojpur based on which the order of removal was issued by the District Welfare Officer. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner invoked the appellate jurisdiction, who happened to be the Divisional Commissioner at the relevant time. The Divisional Commissioner after considering the rival submissions remanded the matter back for fresh consideration by the District Magistrate, in the interregnum the new District Magistrate has taken over and the matter was heard by the new District Magistrate, who has passed a detailed order on 19.12.2008, where for the reasons assigned - 2 - therein the order of removal passed earlier has been upheld. Petitioner has challenged this order dated 19.12.2008 contained in Annexure-8 in the present writ application. Contention of the petitioner was that initially there was a forum of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner but the State Government has vested that appellate jurisdiction in the District Magistrate and, therefore, she has no remedy available except by filing of the writ application. Further it is submitted that reasoning tendered in the decision is not based on true facts and there are errors of facts which require interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the State has taken the Court through the impugned order contained in Annexure-8. The Court comes to a considered opinion that the District Magistrate has dealt with every aspect of the matter and has rightly come to a conclusion that a kind of fraud and deceit had been played by the petitioner in obtaining the said appointment by faking the age. Several instances have been indicated in the order and the Court does not find any irrationality in the same. In absence of any major legal flaw, the Court is not inclined to interfere with this order and the writ application is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits thereafter that the petitioner had worked for about 7 months before the order of removal came to be passed and she is entitled to remuneration for that period. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of such claim which is subject matter of verification, petitioner has liberty to approach - 3 - the competent authority for such payment, who shall decide the matter within four months of such claim. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)