IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 3379 of 2010 1. SULOCHANA DEVI W/O RAMVILAS YADAV R/O VILL. & P.O.- SRIPURHATI, UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT- SRIPURHATI MADHYA P.S. & BLOCK - PANDAUL, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI 4. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER MADHUBANI 5. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MADHUBANI 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER PANDAUL, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 7. THE MUKHIYA/ PANCHAYAT SECRETARY SRIPURHATI MADHYA GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.S. & BLOCK- PANDAUL, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 8. PUNAM KUMARI W/O SATAYNARAYAN PRASAD R/O VILL. AND POST- SRIPURHATI, UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT- SRIPURHATI, P.S. AND BLOCK- PANDAUL, DISTT.- MADHUBANI AT PRESENT WORKING ON THE POST OF ANGANBARI SEVIKA CENTRE NO. 177 UNDER SRIPURHATI MADHAYA GRAM PANCHAYAT ----------- 2. 13.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was terminated from the post of Aganwari Sewika by the order of the District Programme Officer dated 7.9.2005 on grounds of not being a resident of the captive area i.e., Aganwari Kendra No. 176. She questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No. 14748 of 2005 before this Court. It was disposed with analogous cases on 16.7.2007 to avail remedies before the District Magistrate followed by appeal before the Commissioner. The District Magistrate rejected her claim by order dated 28.5.2009. The appeal against the same before the Commissioner has been rejected as incompetent on 8.12.2009. 2 Learned counsel submits that in view of the direction in the writ petition that appeal was to be preferred before the Commissioner if aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate, the Commissioner could not have declined to hear on grounds of lack of jurisdiction by reference to any administrative instruction. It is next submitted that the finding of the District Magistrate in the order dated 28.5.2009 that the petitioner had admitted in the proceedings before him that she was not a resident of the captive area i.e., Aganwari Kendra No. 176, was an error on record. Counsel for the State points out that no such objection appears to have been taken in appeal or in the pleadings of the writ application. The adjudication by the District Magistrate was a quasi judicial adjudication. The sanctity which attaches to the order sheet of a Court shall be the same sanctity which this Court shall attach to the order of the District Magistrate. To this Court, the recitals of facts of what transpired before the District Magistrate before the order dated 28.5.2009 came to be passed shall be sacrosanct. No ground has been taken in the writ petition that no such concession was made before the District Magistrate. The memo of appeal at Annexure-12 3 to the writ application also does not take any such ground. In (2005)3 SCC 618 (Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Bhanu Lodh & Ors.), it has been held at paragraph 11 as follows:- “11. ....... Having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, we find that the only question which was argued before the learned Single Judge was the one which we have extracted hereinbefore. No other point seems to have been addressed to the court. A perusal of the judgment in the writ appeal also supports this view. In the face of this record, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any other arguments were addressed. We must accept as correct the facts as obtaining from the judgment of the High Court, which cannot be controverted by the averments made in present special leave petition, nor by the statement made across the Bar. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept that any contention other than the contention placed before the High Court was urged before the High Court.” This Court, therefore, finds it difficult to entertain the writ petition. However, if the petitioner opines that she had not made any such concession before the District Magistrate, her remedy lies in first moving before the same authority before whom the concession is alleged to have been made inviting attention of that authority that in fact no such concession had been made. If the petitioner files any such application 4 before the District Magistrate within a period of 30 days from today, let the same be considered and disposed off in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of such application along with a copy of the present order. The writ application stands dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)