IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17078 of 2009 1. MADHULIKA CHOUDHARY W/O AMAR NATH SINGH R/O VILL- RATANPUR DIHI, P.S- SARAIYA, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, null SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR I.C.D.S. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISON, MUZAFFARPUR 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR 6. DISTRICT WELFARE -CUM-PROFRAMME OFFICER, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 7. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SARAIYA SUB DIVISION, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2. 2.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner came to be appointed as an Anganwari Sewika from the general category against a reserved category vacancy. Her service was terminated by the District Magistrate allegedly without compliance of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner questioned the same before the Commissioner who by a reasoned order after hearing her arrived at the finding that her appointment was contrary to law as she had been wrongly appointed against the reserved category vacancy. Learned counsel for the State points out from the order of the Commissioner that there are allegations of forgery and impersonation with regard to the name of the husband of the petitioner also. Natural justice has been held to be no unruly 2 horse. What it means shall depend on the facts of the case. The petitioner has had an opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner. She did not raise any issues before the Commissioner of any alleged government instruction with regard to appointment of a general category person when a reserved category person was not available. This Court shall not allow the petitioner to raise fresh issues before this Court to assail the order of the Commissioner not raised before the Commissioner himself. There is no pleading in the writ application that such issue was raised before the Commissioner. Additionally, the writ petition contains no challenge whatsoever to the findings of the Commissioner with regard to the allegations of fraud and forgery against the petitioner, vis-à-vis the misrepresentation and impersonation in context of the name of her husband. There is no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)