IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11289 of 2009 Saraswati Kumari Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------- 3. 12.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Respondent no. 9. The petitioner and Respondent no. 9 were contestants for the post of Anganwari Sevika. Respondent no. 9 came to be appointed. The petitioner questioned the same. The District Magistrate rejected the application which in turn has been affirmed in appeal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent no. 9 submitted two contradictory dates of birth and when the issue was raised she took the pretext of moving the Board authorities for correction of the date of birth after seventeen years. He next submits that according to the instructions of the Board, two different dates of birth of a candidate were grounds for cancellation of the School certificate itself. Counsel for the respondents urged that the order is reasoned. Merely because another view was possible the Court should not interfere. In any event the respondent no. 9 has moved for correction of her date of birth. Anganwari Sevikas are not government servants as held by a Division Bench of this Court in 2004 (2) PLJR 833 as also by the Supreme Court in (2007) 11 SCC 681. They are merely agents of the Principal appointed for dissemination of welfare schemes. Only because the Principal happens to be the Government, the Court shall scrutinize the action of the Principal only to the extent that it must be fair, reasonable and the action must not be arbitrary, perverse, fanciful or illogical. Once the Principal has assigned reasons and those reasons do not fall in any of the aforesaid categories, it shall not be the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to go into sufficiency of the reasons keeping in mind the nature of the relationship between the parties. In which agent the Principal has faith and considers more suitable for its purpose is for the Principal to decide and not for the Court to thrust upon. This Court has already held in CWJC No. 3769 of 2009 and CWJC No. 5244 of 2010, that the rigours of standard and scrutiny as applicable to government servants shall not be the same for agents. The impugned order states that in any event and keeping in mind the two dates of birth of Respondent no. 9 she was still eligible for appointment. In the guise of powers for judicial review it shall not be proper for the Court to interfere with the aforesaid reasons which more than adequately reflects application of mind by the District Magistrate to the controversy involved. The District Magistrate is better suited to appreciate the utility of the petitioner vis a vis Respondent no. 9 to decide on the appointment of an agent. Merely because another view is possible shall not vest jurisdiction in this Court in the garb of judicial review to upset the impugned order merely because this Court can do so. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)