Meena Devi vs The State of Bihar and Others

Navin Sinha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2008 of the District Magistrate as affirmed in Appeal No. 5/08 by the Commissioner unseating her from the post of Angan Bari Sevika.

The submission is that after appointment her services could not have been terminated in violation of principles, of natural justice even on any alleged grounds of illegality/irregularity in the appointment.

The appellate authority himself notices that there was material from the mapping register that the dominant category was backward class and the petitioner was the only candidate from the backward caste. There was thus no illegality in the appointment warranting interference by termination in violation of principles of natural justice.

Angan Bari Sevikas are not Government servants and the issues of their appointment and termination cannot be tested on the yardstick as may be available to Government servants. The relationship between the Government and the petitioner is that of a principal and agent. But because the principal is the Government, the Court shall examine its actions only to the extent that it is not in violation of principles of natural justice and/or does not suffer from gross illegality or patent arbitrariness. If the principal does not wish to appoint an agent for reasons which cannot be classified as irrelevant or not germane, the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should not lightly interfere with such orders by applying the yardsticks as may be applicable to Government servants. In fact, it has already been so held by a detailed consideration in C.W.J.C. No. 3796 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 5244 of 2010 relying on an observation of a Division Bench in Smt. Sajjan Devi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and (2007) 11 SCC 681 (State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Ameerbi & Ors.) that Angan Bari Sevikas do not hold posts under the Government.

If the authorities have opined that there was an irregularity in the selection of the agent to be appointed for disseminitation of their welfare schemes, can it be considered that the action of the principal in holding a fresh selection process to appoint agents of its satisfaction was not a germane or relevant issue. All that the Court shall examine is if there are reasons. It shall not go into the sufficiency of the reasons. If two views are possible from the same order, it shall not vest jurisdiction in the Court to take the other view in the garb of exercise of powers of judicial review merely because as a superior court it has the authority to do so. If the order is sustainable on any other ground, the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 shall not interfere.

Item-57 of the order of the Commissioner takes notice that the constitution of the Aam Sabha in which the petitioner came to be selected was not in accordance with law. There is no material placed by the petitioner in the writ petition controverting that issue of fact. The reasoning of the Commissioner is therefore infallible.

Principles of Natural Justice are not to apply blindly in every case. It has aptly been described that it is not an unruly horse to run across any terrain.

If the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate the constitution of Aam Sabha in accordance with law by which she was selected, to set aside the termination only on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice shall be an empty formality when after hearing her a fresh order of termination shall follow on that very ground, indefensible by the petitioner in the present proceeding.

There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.