IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15119 of 2009 1. PRAMILA DEVI @ PRAMILA KUMARI W/O JAGARNATH MANDAL R/O GRAM PANCHAYAT NIRMALI, P.S.- PIPRA, DISTT- SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR , SOCIAL WELFARE, I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER KOSHI PRAMANDAL, SAHARSA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR , WELFARE KOSHI PRAMANDAL SAHARSA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUPAUL 6. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER SUPAUL 7. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER SUPAUL 8. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER PIPRA, SUPAUL 9. THE MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT NIRMALI, P.S. PIPRA, DISTT- SUPAUL ----------- 2. 27.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims having been appointed as an Anganbari Sewika on 18.6.2004 in accordance with the conditions of eligibility and rules as then existing. Her services have been terminated on 8.12.2006 with reference to certain new circulars of eligibility issued thereafter. The contention is that the new circular and conditions came into force only with effect from 5.10.2005 and they cannot have retrospective effect. Administrative orders, unlike statutory provisions cannot be given retrospective effect. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has had reasonable opportunity when the Commissioner has also declined interference in appeal. 2 The impugned order of the District Magistrate dated 8.12.2006 is unreasoned. It does not explain the illegality in the appointment of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner in Paragraph 19 of the writ application that she was not heard and which finds no reference in the impugned order. All that the letter refers to is the letter of the I.C.D.S. Dated 27.9.2005 and 2.8.2006 without even disclosing what the letters contained. The order of the Commissioner is barely in three lines, cryptic, completely non-speaking. An administrative authority dealing with the rights of a citizen and passing orders adverse to the citizen is required in a State governed by rule of law, to pass a reasoned order. This aspect of the law is decades old. If the administrative authorities insist in exercising administrative power and quasi- judicial powers affecting the citizen without passing speaking orders, hindering judicial review, the Court has little option but to set aside such orders. The order of the District Magistrate dated 8.12.2006 and of the Commissioner dated 16.4.2009 is set aside. In deference to the objection of the learned State counsel, this Court directs that this order shall not result in immediate reinstatement of the petitioner. The 3 matter is remanded to the District Magistrate to hear the petitioner and others concerned and then pass a speaking and reasoned order displaying full application of mind, to facilitate judicial review. Let the same be done within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall stand reinstated. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)