IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1385 of 2009 Smt.Kumari Rani . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 01.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have been selected on the post of Anganwari Sevika at Centre No. 6 Madhya Vidyalaya Mujaphara, Village Mujaphara, Panchayat Dih Per, Block Veerpur, District Begusarsai. Questioning the appointment of Respondent no. 9, the petitioner moved before the District Magistrate unsuccessfully against which she preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the same on 12.9.2008. Anganwari Sevikas do not hold any post in the Government and are not government servants as held by a Division Bench of this Court in 2004(2) PLJR 833 (Smt. Sajjan Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and by the Supreme Court in (2007)11 SCC 681 State of Karnataka & ors. v. Ameerbi & ors.) They are merely agents of the Government which appoints them in the capacity of a Principal for dissemination of its welfare scheme. The relationship being that of Principal and Agent only, the master and servant relationship that applies between the government and its employee has no relevance in governing this relationship. Therefore the standard of scrutiny which shall apply in a Court of law to a relationship between a master and servant shall not be the same as that between a Principal and Agent. Merely because the Principal happens to be the government all that the Court shall examine is where there has been outright 2 arbitrariness and gross illegality. If there be a reason, the Court shall not go into sufficiency of the reason to thrust the Agent back upon a reluctant Principal. In the case of Sajjan Devi (supra) it has been held at Paragraph-13 of the judgment as follows:- “13. Thus, the post of Awganwari Sewika is not a post in the Government service and as such the private respondents cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution.” In the case of State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC 681, it has been held at paragraphs 13 and 20 as follows:- “13. The posts of anganwadi workers are not statutory posts. They have been created in terms of the scheme. It is one thing to say that there exists a relationship of employer and employee by and between the State and anganwadi workers but it is another thing to say that they are holders of civil post. 20. Anganwadi workers, however, do not carry on any function of the State. They do not hold post under a statute. Their posts are not created. Recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case. The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for the purpose of their appointment within the constitutional scheme exists.” It is not that the petitioner has been left unheard. Had she not been given a hearing by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, the question of violation of principles of natural justice may have applied and the ratio laid down in the case of Sajjan Devi (surpa) shall have applied to the ouster of the petitioner with full force. That is not the case presently. Nonetheless when under the guidelines the Agent makes a grievance against any person acting on behalf of the principal and 3 the guidelines provides for an adjudicatory decision which the District Magistrate has done and an appeal lies against the same, such an appeal is not an empty fruitless formality. Even under the administrative guidelines the appellate authority decides the right and contentions of the parties. It is nothing but a rudimentary dispensation of justice by an adjudicatory order pursuant to which the Principal on a reasoned order displaying application of mind leaves the agent satisfied that the Principal, the State Government, has acted reasonably and considered the claims. The deciding ling between an administrative order affective right and an adjudicatory body deciding a lis has narrowed down and has virtually disappeared. It stands well settled by repeated judicial pronouncements that an appellate order is required to be reasoned and discussed. The appellate authority must consider the claims of the appellant, the findings of the original authority, the manner in which the appellate authority considers the finding of the original authority and then display independent application of mind balancing the claims and the findings along with the challenges laid out to arrive at an independent reasoning displaying application of mind and full transparency of the decision making process supported by reasons for the conclusion that he may arrive at. In absence of the same the appellate order is rendered illusory. and arbitrary. The present appellate order is cryptic, non speaking in nature and displays no application of mind whatsoever to the aforesaid factors. 4 In the case of Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147, it has been held at paragraph 11 as follows:- “11. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would only reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority and remit the matter for fresh disposal to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority shall consider the detailed representation made by the respondent and also consider the detailed report of the enquiry officer and the records placed before him in its proper perspective and decide the mater afresh on merits. The disciplinary authority is directed to consider the entire case only on the basis of records already on record. The respondent is not permitted to place any further material or record before the disciplinary authority. The order passed by the High Court is set aside for the above reason.” The appellate order dated 12.9.2008 of the Divisional Commissioner, Munger in Appeal No. 12/2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Divisional Commissioner to issue fresh notice to the parties, here them and then dispose of the matter by a reasoned and speaking order in the aforesaid manner within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before him. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)