IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14056 of 2007 RAJIV RANJAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 8.4.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that fresh counselling was required to be done in pursuance of the termination of the services of the private respondents by the Block Development Officer by his order dated 28.9.2007. It was next submitted that in fact the Block Development Officer did not pass the order dated 28.9.2007 at the behest of the District Magistrate but that he had passed another order on 3.5.2007 on the issue appended at Annexure-10 of the present application. Annexure-10 sought to be relied upon merely refers to an application made by a person aggrieved and on basis of which a decision was taken to cancel the panel. It does not appear from the documents that any reasoned order was passed with regard to individual petitioners. Be that as it may, an order of the authorities shall be tested on the basis of the recitals contained in the order and not what may be sought to be stated of the order in a writ petition or counter affidavit. If an authority be needed the same, reference may be made to(M.S.Gill Vs. CEC) 1978 (2) SCR 272 (283) as follows: ‘The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise, otherwise, an order bad - 2 - in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.’ When the respondent authority which passed the order finds it difficult to defend the order in view of the clear recital in the order itself that it has been passed by the statutory authority at the behest of another and in pursuance of which CWJC No. 13221 of 2008 filed by the private respondents has been allowed, this Court finds it difficult to accept the argument on behalf of the petitioners that they shall have the authority and jurisdiction to support an order of the official respondents which the official respondents themselves find difficult to support. There is no merit in the application and it is accordingly dismissed. (Navin Sinha,J.) A.kumar