IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11783 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh @ Bhuna Singh S/O Late Jageshwar Singh R/O Vill.- Oraina, P.S.- Mufassil, Distt.- Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Nawada 3. District Programme Officer, Nawada 4. Child Development Project Officer, Nawada Sadar, Nawada 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawada Sadar, Nawada 6. Gram Panchayat Raj Oraina, Distt.- Nawada Through Its Mukhiya 7. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Oraina, Distt.- Nawada 8. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Oraina, Distt.- Nawada 9. Block Development Officer, Nawada 10. Smt. Pushpa Kumari W/O Sri Manoj Kumar R/O Vill.- Oraina, P.S.- Mufassil, Distt.- Nawada .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc9) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 22-11-2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate order of the District Magistrate dated 22.5.2010 in an appeal preferred by Respondent No.10. It upsets the order of the District Programme Officer dated 6.2.2010 terminating Respondent No.10 on grounds of dereliction in discharge of duties as Angan Bari Sevika. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the District Programme Officer specifies the reasons for termination after issuance of a show cause notice to Patna High Court CWJC No.11783 of 2010 (2) dt.22-11-2011 2 Respondent No.10, the order of the District Magistrate is cryptic and non-speaking. The appellate order is thus assailed as being arbitrary, sans reasons. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has no locus in the matter as he is not and cannot be an applicant for running an Angan Bari Centre. Angan Bari Sevikas are appointed for dissemination of welfare schemes of the State Government for the down trodden. There appointment is made from the dominant category of the beneficiary area to ensure that the interests of the real needy are adequately protected and enforced by one amongst them. Who is a better suited agent for the purpose is for the Principal to decide and not for Court to thrust upon an unwilling Principal. Merely because the Principal happens to be the State Government, there shall be a bare minimum scrutiny by this Court. The matter has been appropriately agitated before the District Programme Officer and the appellate authority. The appellate authority is of the rank of a District Magistrate. The Court has no reason to believe at this stage that the District Magistrate shall not be interested in dissemination of welfare schemes by appointing an agent unsuited to do so. It is true that there is no specific reason mentioned in the order of the District Magistrate. But, in the nature of Patna High Court CWJC No.11783 of 2010 (2) dt.22-11-2011 3 the relationship, the Court is not persuaded to apply the standards vis-à-vis government servants to hold that the order is bad in absence of reasons. Quite obviously, there has been application of mind as reflected from the observations in the order of the appellate authority. What are the ground realities at the particular location for dissemination of the welfare scheme is best known to the District Magistrate himself who has supervisory powers over personnel in the District Administration. The Court is not persuaded to substitute its own views for that of the District Magistrate at the behest of a person who prima facie does not appear to have any locus in the matter. The writ application is dismissed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)