IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1099 of 2010 1. MUNISHA KUMARI W/O GANGA BISHUN PRASAD R/O VILL SIRH, PS.- ATRI, DISTT-GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ATRI, DISTT-GAYA 4. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT, SIRH, P.S.ATRI, DISTT-GAYA ----------- 03. 07.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.5.2008 passed in Case No. 01/08 unseating her from the post of Anganbari Sewika on the premise that she belonged to village Sirh which was outside village Malhachak which was the captive area for the Anganbari Kendra. The order of the District Magistrate states that the petitioner admitted being a resident of village Sirh. It stood admitted that she was not entitled for appointment being a resident outside the captive area. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted from the reply to the show cause filed before the District Magistrate that certain areas of village Malhachak formed a part of village Sirh. These aspects have not been considered by the District Magistrate, despite having been raised in the 2 reply to the show cause notice. In an effort to overcome the delay in having moved this Court nearly one and half years later in January, 2010, it was submitted that if the order of the District Magistrate was not in consonance with law and did not consider materials from the show cause, delay was irrelevant. The petitioner had been working as Anganbari Sewika for long years without any allegations against her. Anganbari Sewikas are not Government servants. They do no hold any civil posts. The status and protection available to Government servants do not apply to Anganbari Sewikas. They are merely agents of the Government in the dispensation of a welfare scheme for the downtrodden being performed by a welfare State. If the Principal does not wish to retain the agent, invoking the law with regard to Principal and agent, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot force the agent upon the principal. The appointment of the agent by the principle which is the Government, only requires fair play in action which means an opportunity to hear. That has been complied with. If the reasoning in the order of the principle be erroneous, it may make out a case for remand. But before directing remand this Court 3 observes that the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 states that fresh selection be done. The petitioner does not disclose, if any fresh selections of an Agent have been made and who she may be. If the petitioner seeks equation of her service with a Government servant, in service cases, delay becomes vital. Any interference at this belated stage shall amount to unseating any Agent who may have been appointed. The newly appointed Agent has continued sanguine that the appointment was safe till the petitioner belatedly raises issues. That will lead to fresh litigation by the aggrieved who has already been appointed and is working. The principal, that is the Government, will then find itself embroiled in litigation between the petitioner and the newly appointed Anganbari Sewika. The inevitably sufferer shall be the scheme of the State Government for amelioration of the downtrodden, ultimately resulting in inaction and suffering of the downtrodden himself to serve whom the petitioner seeks to pursue matters in litigation. The writ application is dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)