IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1785 of 2010 1. Pinki Kumari @ Hira Devi W/O Mukesh Kumar Alia Mangal Sah R/O Vill- Bardauni, Po- Barahi, P.S Bithan, Distt- Samastipur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 3. The Collector, Samastipur, Distt- Samastipur 4. The District Welfare Officer, Samastipur, Distt- Samastipur 5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rosera, Distt- Samastipur 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Bithan Distt- Samastipur 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Sohma, P.S Bithan, Distt- Samastipur 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Sohma, P.S- Bithan, Distt- Samastipur 9. Smt. Dharamshila Devi W/O Vijay Kumar Poddar R/O Vill Bardauni, P.S Bithan, Po & Distt- 4/ 30/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and Respondent No.9. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected as an Angan Bari Sevika by the Aam Sabha. It was questioned by Respondent No.9. The District Magistrate on 12.3.2009 wrongly set aside the appointment. The appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal on 30.8.2009. The attention of the Court is invited to its order dated 13.8.2010 noticing the defence that the petitioner and her husband both had an alias name which did not find adequate discussion in the impugned orders. The Court had required the respondents to file a counter affidavit disclosing if any 2 enquiry had been held on this aspect. The official respondents have not answered this question. The impugned orders are therefore not sustainable. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders urging that the finding is that the Aam Sabha which selected the petitioner was not held in accordance with law. There was no irregularity in the Aam Sabha which selected respondent no. 9. Reliance is further placed on a Division Bench order in L.P.A. No. 772 of 2011. The order dated 12.3.2009 records a finding that the Aam Sabha which selected the petitioner suffered from grave irregularity as the proceeding register dated 10.7.2007 was not signed by the Mukhiya. The fresh Aam Sabha held on 10.1.2008 which selected Respondent No.9 was irregular only to the extent that approval for holding the fresh Aam Sabha had not been taken. The appellate authority has held that there was no other infirmity in the Aam Sabha which was attended by all members. Respondent No.9 had contended a dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner before the District Magistrate based on her name in the voters’ list etc. in context of which the defence of an alias name of the petitioner and her husband was being taken as 3 noticed in the order of this Court. But, if the findings are not based on that question, and the findings are based on an illegality in the conduct of Aam Sabha which selected the petitioner, the controversy of any alias name etc. becomes irrelevant. The appointment was of an agent of the Government for dissemination of its welfare scheme. It was not an employment under the Government. The relationship primarily is of principal and agent. The principal has to be given the discretion to select an agent of its choice. But because the principal happens to be the Government, there shall be a bare minimum regulatory control over its actions by the Court in exercise of powers under Article-226. This regulatory power shall not extend to the extent applicable in the case of a government servant claiming appointment and/or termination. All these aspects have been considered by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3769 of 2009 and 5244 of 2010 relying upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in 2004(2) P.L.J.R. 833 (Smt. Sajjan Devi & Ors.vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and 2007)11 SCC 681 (State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerbi) more recently a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.772/11 has taken the same view. 4 Once the parties have been duly heard and a conclusion has been arrived at by the authorities for reasons specified in the order which cannot be said to be arbitrary, fanciful or illogical, it shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of powers under Article-226 in a relationship between a principal and agent to go into the sufficiency of the reasons or to sit as an appellate authority to conclude if any other finding was possible on the same facts. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)