IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7119 of 2010 1. Indu Kumari W/O Hari Narayan Roy R/O Vill.- Kharkhauan, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, Distt.- Vaishali Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Department Of Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary Department Of Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4. The District Magistrate, Vaishali 5. The District Programme Officer, Vaishali 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Vaishali 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhagwanpur 8. Smt. Urmila Kumari W/O Shri Arjun Rai R/O Vill.- Kherkhaua, P.S.- Vaishali, Distt.- Vaishali ----------- 3. 22.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the private respondent no. 8. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Miscellaneous (Service) Appeal No. 42 of 2009 preferred by respondent no. 8, allowing the same, upsetting the order dated 14.3.2009 passed by the District Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner questioning the appointment of respondent no. 8 and allowing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate arrived at a specific finding that the appointment of respondent no. 8 was made by the Panchayat Level Selection Committee and not by the Aam Sabha which was contrary to the guidelines for selection as the Aam 2 Sabha alone was competent to take such decision. The Commissioner does not decide the issue but misdirected himself on the ground that respondent no. 8 had more marks than the petitioner. The contention therefore is that the appellate authority has passed the order taking into consideration issues not germane and ignoring relevant materials for decision. Counsel for the respondents are unable to demonstrate to the Court from the order of the appellate authority consideration of the aforesaid finding of fact arrived at to upset the order of the District Magistrate that the selection of respondent no. 8 by the Aam Sabha and not by the Panchayat Level Selection Committee. The reliance by the State at Paragraph 5(iv) of the counter affidavit that the Aam Sabha was held on 7.2.2007 in which respondent no. 8 was selected does not impress the Court. Once there was a speaking order of the Commissioner the order shall be tested on the basis of the recitals contained in the order and it cannot be supplemented by any statements explaining it in a counter affidavit. The order of the Commissioner dated 19.1.2010 is accordingly set aside. The matter is 3 remanded to the Court of the Commissioner to deliver specific finding on the conclusions of facts by the District Magistrate. Any other grievance may be raised by the aggrieved before the Commissioner. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)