IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1935 of 2010 1. REKHA KUMARI W/O RAMESH KUMAR R/O VILL- JAGATKHAP. P.S DUMARIYA, DISTT- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GAYA 4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, GAYA 5. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, DUMARIYA BLOCK, DISTT- GAYA 6. GRAM PANCHAYAT, PANKARA THROUGH ITS MUKHIYA, BLOCK- DUMARIYA, DISTT- GAYA 7. SHUSHILA KUMARI W/O RAJNEESH KUMAR R/O VILL-PATKHAULIA, BLOCK-DUMARI, DISTT- GAYA ----------- 2. 6.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the respondent no. 7, who has appeared suo motu. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2009 unseating her from the post of Anganwari Sewika Kendra Patkhaulia District-Gaya. The short submission is that earlier on allegation made the matter was enquired and orders passed by the District Magistrate dated 18.12.2007 that there was no illegality in the selection of the petitioner rejecting the complaint. It is submitted that soon thereafter the impugned order has been passed without consideration of the earlier order dated 18.12.2007. Counsel for the respondent State and the private respondent are unable to demonstrate from the impugned order any consideration of the order dated 2 18.12.2007. It is specific assertion of the petitioner in Paragraph-13 of the application that the petitioner was not heard when the impugned order dated 26.12.2009 came to be passed. The order passed in a quasi judicial capacity can certainly be reviewed if there is a statutory provision, or if the order is passed on fraud. In certain situation, the order may be reviewed also if materials already available on the record were overlooked. But all this necessitate a reasoned discussion with regard to the earlier order, the error committed, and that the person aggrieved was heard. There is no recitals in the impugned order dated 26.12.2009 that the petitioner was heard. The order dated 26.12.2009 is accordingly set aside. This shall be without prejudice to the rights to the State respondent to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)