IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4503 of 2009 Kiran Kumari . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 25.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division in Case No. 81 of 2007 allowing the appeal preferred by respondent no. 10 and upsetting the order of the District Magistrate dated 18.3.2008 passed in favour of the petitioner unseating her from the post of Anganwari Sewika. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a resident of the same Tola to which the private respondents belonged and therefore there was no justification for unseating her especially when she had higher marks than the private respondent. Counsel for the State relies upon the departmental letter No. 1129 dated 13.6.1998 referred to in the order of the Commissioner to submit that the petitioner did not fulfill the terms of eligibility and therefore the fact that she may have had higher marks than respondent no. 10 was not relevant. 2 This Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 3796 of 2009 and 5244 of 2010 has considered the status of Anganwari Sewika not being at par with Government servants, not entitled to the same standards of protection or strict standards of scrutiny with regard to appointment and termination as available to Government servants. Only in cases of gross arbitrariness and illegality shocking the conscience of the Court can the writ Court interfere at their behest. The relationship being that of a Principal and Agent, once the person has been heard and a reasoned order has been passed by the Principal not desiring to appoint a particular Agent, the writ Court will not enter into the thicket of facts as a super appellate authority to decide on the eligibility of the Agent being appointed by the Principal for dissemination of its welfare scheme. It is not the jurisdiction of the Court to go into the sufficiency of the reasons. The question of residence of petitioner is a question of fact and whether she fulfilled the other requirement of respondents based on the beneficiary class, are questions of fact best left to the administrative authorities. That the respondents 3 have been more than fair to the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the District Magistrate had ruled in her favour when the Commissioner for specified reasons has not agreed with the District Magistrate. The petitioner cannot contend that she has been denied a hearing or that the order of the Commissioner is fanciful, based on irrelevant consideration. Only because another view on the same facts may be possible shall not be sufficient justification for interference. The writ application stands dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)