IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1059 of 2009 5 29.3.2010 Manika Devi, w/o Sudarshan Ram, R/o vill.- Jhali, P.O. Sabar, P.S. Karamchak, Distt.- Kaimur ...... Appellant / Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Director, Child Development, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Kaimur 6. Block Development Officer, Rampur Block, Rampur, Kaimur 7. CDPO, Rampur Block, Rampur, Kaimur 8. Mukhiya Sabar Gram Panchayat, At +P.O.- Sabar, Distt.- Kaimur 9. Panchyat Sebak, Sabar Gram Panchyat At+PO.- Sabar, Distt.- Kaimur ..... Respondents/ Respondents ------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. It appears that after the appellant was selected in a meeting of the Aam Sabha of Gram Panchyat presided by Up Mukhiya, complaints were made that the post could not have been treated as reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate because the required mapping of population was not done before reserving the seat and 2 another grievance was raised that the Up Mukhiya had convened the meeting of Aam Sabha illegally when the Mukhiya was generally available and had not authorised him to convene such a meeting by treating the Mukhiya to be absent. The Writ Court has noticed that power of looking into such grievances and taking corrective action is available only to the Collector who has considered the relevant materials and evidence for canceling the appointment of appellant - petitioner on the post of Aanganbari Sevika. We are in agreement with the views of the Writ Court that the matter does not require any interference. However, the observations made by the Writ Court in the last part of the order will not be affected by this order. The selection on the post of Aanganbari Sevika and appointment thereto are matters governed by an executive scheme and such appointees only receive honorarium and can hardly be equated with employees under the State who have permanency of tenure and protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In 3 such matters, the view adopted by the Writ Court appears to be appropriate. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.) sk