IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17352 of 2011 Nutan Kumari Wife Of Naresh Kumar Mahto Residence Of Village + P.O. - Udaypur, Block - Rosra, District – Samastipur- --------------------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur. 3. The District Welfare Officer, Samastipur. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer Rosra, District - Samastipur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Rosra, District - Samastipur. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Rosra District - Samastipur. 7. Anita Devi @ Anita Kumari W/O Naresh Mahto @ Mirshu R/O Vill. + P.O. - Udaypur, Block - Rosra, Distt. – Samastipur- --------------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 18.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. When the petitioner had approached the High Court earlier by filing CWJC No. 5358 of 2008 as she was terminated from the post of Anganbari Sewika on the ground that her father was in government service, the High Court disposed of the writ application directing the District Magistrate to reconsider his earlier order passed in 2008 on the basis of the adjudication made in the case of Sunita Kumari vs. State the Bihar & Others reported in 2010(3) PLJR 68. The District Magistrate has now passed yet another order contained in annexure-9 where he has refused to recall the earlier order on the ground that any change in the policy based on the declaration made by the High Court will have prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Since earlier adjudication dated 1.3.2008 was passed on the policy which was still in existence and that policy has undergone change subsequently in the year 2010-11, it does not mean that earlier adjudication will also become bad. The principle on this score is not in doubt that unless the judgment so declares that it would also 2 be retrospective in nature it only has prospective application. In view of the same there was no occasion for the District Magistrate to review the earlier order dated 1.3.2008 because at that point of time the petitioner did suffer disqualification in terms of the policy/ guidelines 2006 and this is what the District Magistrate had held in the impugned order. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the District Magistrate is arbitrary if not in teeth of the direction of the High Court seems to be misplaced because the District Magistrate has rightly or correctly decided the issue based on well established principle on this count. There is no legal infirmity in the order of the District Magistrate. This writ petition is dismissed. RPS ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)