IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8487 of 2010 1. Sunita Kumari W/O Akhilesh Kumar R/O Vill Mahesdih, P.S.Akbarpur, Distt-Nawada Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary, Social Welfare Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. Dy. Director, Social Welfare Magadh Division, Gaya At Gaya 3. D.M. Nawada 4. Sub-Divisional Welfare Programme Officer Rajauli 5. Child Development Project Officer Akbarpur Block, Akbarpur, P.S.Akbarpur, Distt-Nawada 6. B.D.O. Cum -C.O. Akbarpur Block, Akbarpur, P.S.Akbarpur, Distt-Nawada 7. Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Ledha, P.S.Akbarpur, Distt- Nawada 8. Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Ledha, P.S.Akbarpur, Distt-Nawada 9. Meena Devi W/O Rajendra Mistry R/O Vill Mahesdhi, P.S.Akbarpur, Distt-Nawada 3/ 13/10/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by the District Magistrate in appeal declining to grant her the relief for reinstatement as an Angan Bari Sevika and directing fresh selection. It appears that in a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.9 for such appointment, both of them came to this Court in separate writ applications. The grievance of the petitioner is that her application filed before the District Magistrate is still to be considered. 2 This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3769 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No.5244 of 2010 as held on a detailed discussion that Angan Bari Sevikas are mere agents of the State Government for dissemination of welfare schemes. They cannot claim parity with government servants in matters of appointment and service. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 772 of 2011 opining that if an Angan Bari Sevika was aggrieved, the remedy appropriately lay in a suit. This Court under Article-226 because the principal happens to be the State Government is only concerned with apparent arbitrariness and perversity only. Once the orders of the State Government contains reasons the Court shall not go into the sufficiency of the reasons. The impugned order after considering the claims of the petitioner and respondent No.9 arrives at the satisfaction that the mapping register, an essential document for purposes of identification of persons for appointment, was itself deficient and required to be re- drawn before the selection process may be held afresh. The Court finds no reason to interfere into what is purely an administrative decision for specified reasons. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)