IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.825 of 2009 Sanju Devi . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 27.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Anganwari Sewika in the Bhetania Gram Panchayat in the District of Aurangabad. Respondent no. 11, however came to be selected. On an enquiry that the mapping register was not prepared properly, the entire selection was cancelled and the District Magistrate directed fresh selection to be made. Respondent no. 11, carried the matter in Appeal to the Commissioner who remanded the matter to the District Magistrate when the latter has finally upheld the selection of respondent no. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the mapping register was found to be bad, without dealing with that issue, the District Magistrate could not have directed reappointment of respondent no. 10 unless and until the mapping register was prepared afresh. From the order of the District Magistrate dated 9.7.2007, it appears that he did not cancel the appointment of respondent no. 11 alone but selections 2 made at 76 newly created Anganwari Kendras. Respondent no. 11 individually agitated the matter, pursued her remedy when an adjudicatory order has been passed. Anganwari Sewikas are not Government servants and do not hold Government posts as held in 2004(2) PLJR 833 and explained in (2007) 11 SCC 681. They are only agents of the Government engaged for dissemination of welfare schemes framed by the State Government for the benefit of the down trodden. They are not to be treated on parity with Government servant for any purpose and the standards which shall apply to Government servants whether for appointment/termination is not applicable to such agents, however the rudimentary principles of natural justice alone shall apply. The Court is satisfied from the facts as narrated by the petitioner, that there has been due application of mind at more than one stage when the matter has been agitated firstly before the District Magistrate then before the Commissioner and again before the District Magistrate on remand. Once orders have been passed after considering claims, it cannot be said that it is an arbitrary ipso facto order requiring interference. It is not every order which requires the 3 interference of this Court. If the Court were to start casually interfering with appointment of an Anganwari Sewika treating them at par with the Government servants, annulling appointment by applying standards of appointment relating to Government service, it may well become impossible for the Government to disseminate its welfare scheme. In (2005) 6 SCC 454 (ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel) it has been observed at Paragraph-23 as follows:- “23. It is now well settled that the High Courts and the Supreme Court while exercising their equity jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution as also Article 136 thereof may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior courts in India may not strike down even a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law.” The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J. )