IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 3383 of 2010 1. SIMA KUMARI W/O RANJIT KUMAR R/O VILL.- SAH TOLA, BENGHA, WARD NO. 3/4, SAHARSA, P.S. AND DISTT.- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPTT. OF WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BLOCK- KAHRA, DISTT.- SAHARSA 6. SHIV RAGNI DEVI W/O SHREE DEO NARAYAN SAH R/O VILL.- BENGHA, WARD NO. 3/4, P.O.- BENGHA, P.S. AND DISTT.- SAHARSA ----------- 2. 13.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. By order dated 9.5.2008, the selection of the petitioner as Aganwari Sewika was set aside on grounds of residence. She questioned the same in appeal which has been rejected by order dated 12.9.2009 of the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission, to urge that an appellate order is required to be reasoned and discussed, displaying application of mind not only to the original order but also the grounds urged to challenge the original order. There is no discussion in the appellate order of the grounds taken by the petitioner assailing the original order of termination and why the appellate authority did not find any substance or justification in the grounds of challenge. The submission was that the attack is more on 2 procedures rather than the final order. In absence of any reasons contained in the appellate order, it becomes arbitrary. Counsel for the State urged that the original order of termination was reasoned, that the petitioner was not a resident of the captive area. An appellate order is required to display proper application of mind to the issues raised, the discussion of the original order followed by a critical analysis of the two to arrive at its own finding based on reasoned specified. It need not be very elaborate but must display appreciation, understanding and conclusion. In (2008)3 SCC 469 ( Divisional Forest Officer Kotha Gudem & Ors. Vs. Madhusudhan Rao ) discussing the duties of the appellate authority, it has been held at Paragraph 20 as follows:- “20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is ture that no detailed reasoned are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.” This Court therefore finds it difficult to sustain the appellate order dated 12.9.2009 in its present form. It is set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate 3 authority to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order of his satisfaction from the materials on record, preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, to facilitate judicial review, should the need arise. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)