IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1268 of 2009 Somara Kumari Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhanendra Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha, Advocate For the Respondent No. 8: Mr.Lal Bahadur Pandey, Advocate ---------- 3. 09.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the Respondent no. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Counsel for the Respondent no. 8 prays for time to file counter affidavit. Since it is primarily the action of the official respondents which is impugned and the judicial review to be done is based only on the recitals contained in the two impugned orders the Court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter at the request of Respondent no. 8. The Court had already indicated at the time of issuance of notice that Respondent no. 8 must enter appearance along with the counter affidavit and that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a specific objection had been raised with regard to ineligibility of Respondent no. 8 to be considered for appointment on the grounds contained in Clause 3 (e) of the guidelines that her relative was a public representative. The objection has been noticed but ignoring the same she has been held entitled to preference as a widow. The appellate authority likewise has ignored this aspect. The counter affidavit of the State is of no help and does not deal with this aspect of the matter. 2 Counsel for the Respondent no. 8 submitted that her brother was engaged in a semi government organization which is not a disqualification. In exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 the Court is primarily concerned with the decision making process and not the decision itself at the first instance. If the petitioner had raised an objection with regard to ineligibility of Respondent no. 8 under a particular clause of the guidelines there had to be a determination by either acceptance or rejection of the objection. Having noticed the objection the District Magistrate could not have ignored it and proceeded to hold in favour of Respondent no. 8 on the ground of her being a widow only. The benefit that may come to her by being a widow can get obliterated by her disqualification. An order which ignores or fails to take into consideration relevant materials while deciding the matter cannot but be held arbitrary. The impugned order dated 25.9.2007 and that of the Commissioner dated 21.7.2008 in Appeal No. 558 of 2007 are held to be not sustainable in their present form. Both the orders are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate to decide the matter afresh in light of the discussions contained in the present order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)