IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1200 of 2009 Sunita Devi . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2/ 28/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.2007 of the District Magistrate, setting aside her selection and appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika, as affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner on 26.7.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the mapping register prepared by the C.D.P.O. the dominant caste in the area concerned was “backward” and therefore the appointment of the petitioner was justified. The Mukhiya wrongly created a parallel mapping register showing the dominant caste as “general” to favour another candidate in preference to the petitioner. The Court has been taken through the order of the District Magistrate. He notices two rival competing mapping registers. Which is actually the dominant caste therefore becomes a disputed question of fact which necessarily has to be re-determined in view of the competing claims. The Court therefore finds 2 no error in the order of the District Magistrate which then proceeds to direct fresh selection and appoint after ascertainment of the dominant caste. It cannot be lost sight of that Angan Bari Sevikas do not hold a government post. They cannot claim parity with government servants for any purpose, much less appointment and/or termination. They are merely agents of the Government appointed for dissemination of welfare schemes by the Government in accordance with the criteria and guidelines fixed by it and considered best suited for the selection of personnel keeping in mind the social objectives of the Government. The relationship between them is primarily that of a principal and agent. If the principal is satisfied that the selection of the agent has not been in accordance with law, the question of thrusting an agent upon the principal by the orders of the Court simply does not arise. A case where gross arbitrariness and illegality in action on part of the Government may be presented before the Court shall stand on an entirely different footing than the present case. In that event, the Court may or may not interfere. In the present case the claimant agent has had more than adequate opportunity not only before the District Magistrate, but also before the Commissioner. 3 There is no occasion for the Court to interfere with an order which is otherwise well reasoned and discussed in writ jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)