Rani Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1557 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25067 of 2013
     ======================================================

Rani Devi, wife of Vijay Baitha, Anganwari Sevika, Anganbari Centre Baitha Tola, Mirzapur Jagani, Centre Code No. 08, Resident of Village - Mirzapur Jagani, P.S. Singhwara, District Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme (I.C.D.S.), Department of Social Welfare, Patna.

3. The Collector, Darbhanga.

4. The District Programme Officer, Darbhanga.

5. The Child Development Project Officer, Singhawara, District Darbhanga.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Birju Prasad, G.P.-13 Mr. Akshay Lal Prasad, A.C. to G.P-13 Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

2. The order dated 06.10.2020 is modified to the

extent that in the third line of second paragraph the words

"wrongly accepted" will be read as "wrongly not accepted".

3. In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the

order no.277 dated 08.12.2012 (Annexure-4) passed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.25067 of 2013 dt.19-03-2021

District Programme Officer, Darbhanga, whereby the petitioner

has been removed from the post of Anganbari Sevika. Against

the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate

authority rejected the said appeal vide order dated 06.09.2013

(Annexure-6) giving two reasons; first, at the time of inspection

only 3 children were present at the centre whereas, the names of

40 children have been mentioned in the attendance register and

secondly, only 3 children were there and minimum 14 children

is required for running Anganbari centre, and as such, she has no

right to run the centre and rightly she has been removed from

the post of Anganbari Sevika.

4. In the present case, the Assistant Director, Social

Security, Bihar, Patna, made an inspection to the centre at 11:15

A.M. and found that only 3 children were there in the centre,

which was found to be unsatisfactory for running the centre.

Accordingly, show-cause was issued to the petitioner, wherein it

has specifically been mentioned that only 3 children were

present at the time of inspection. After receipt of the show-

cause, the petitioner filed her explanation stating therein that

when inspection was made there was heavy rain and on that

account, only 3 children were present but, after 11:30 A.M.

sufficient number of children assembled, which was verified by Patna High Court CWJC No.25067 of 2013 dt.19-03-2021

the Child Development Project Officer, Singhwara, Darbhanga,

and found that 28 children were present. It has also been stated

that she has been running the centre in accordance with law.

However, the District Programme Officer, Darbhanga, was not

satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, led to

termination of the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sevika,

which has been affirmed by the appellant authority.

5. In the order of the District Programme Officer, it

has been mentioned that only 3 children were present in the

centre and after calling, only 12 children were presented

themselves and as such, the petitioner was not careful to run the

centre properly. The appellate authority has enlarged the scope

of inquiry and recorded that in the attendance register the names

of 40 children were mentioned whereas, only three children

were present at the centre but, the same is not mentioned in the

show-cause, so he cannot expand the charges and dismiss the

appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that when the

petitioner was removed from the post of Anganbari Sevika, one

Pinki Kumari has been appointed in her place, so she should be

added as party respondent as in absence of her, it will not be

proper and desirable to pass order in favour of the petitioner. Patna High Court CWJC No.25067 of 2013 dt.19-03-2021

7. Identical issue came for consideration before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2016(1) PLJR 218 (S.C.)

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that after removal

of original allottee, the appellant was subsequent allottee of the

shop, cannot be a necessary or proper party, who assailed the

order unsuccessfully.

8. In view of the aforesaid decision, this Court is of

the view that Pinki Devi is not a necessary and proper party as

she has been appointed after the post of Anganbari Sevika

became vacant. The petitioner has to succeed on its own merit

not because of fact that Pinki Devi has been appointed after

removal of the petitioner as she was not in fray when the

petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika, inasmuch as,

Pinki Devi, has never challenged the recruitment of the present

petitioner as Anganabari Sevika, so the plea of the State that she

has to be made as party respondent is rejected.

9. It appears that plea has been taken by the petitioner

that at the time of inspection there was heavy rain, on that

account, sufficient number of children have not come but, later

on, 28 children were assembled, which was verified by the

Child Development Project Officer, Singhwara, Darbhanga. Patna High Court CWJC No.25067 of 2013 dt.19-03-2021

Furthermore, Clause 1(2) of the letter dated 20.06.2012 issued

by the directorate of Integrated Child Development Services

(ICDS) Scheme (Annexure-7) speaks that in the centre if the

number of children is found to be below 14 without any

reasonable cause, proper action can be taken. However, in the

present case, plea has been taken by the petitioner that on the

day of inspection, there was heavy rain and this fact is

corroborated and supported from the letter of the Child

Development Project Officer, Singhwara, Darbhanga, dated

28.06.2013, wherein it has been stated that on the day of

inspection there was heavy rain, inasmuch as, in the guidelines,

it has specifically been mentioned that if children is found to be

below 14 in number and the reasonable ground has been shown,

in such circumstance, action is required to be avoided. In the

present case, plea has been taken by the petitioner that on the

day of inspection there was heavy rain, on that account,

sufficient number of children were not present and this fact is

corroborated from the letter of the Child Development Project

Officer. Furthermore, the appellate authority has enlarged the

scope of consideration of the claim of the petitioner.

10. In such view of the matter, the order contained in

memo no. 277 dated 08.12.2012 passed by the District Patna High Court CWJC No.25067 of 2013 dt.19-03-2021

Programme Officer, Darbhanga, and order dated 06.09.2013

passed by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, do not survive

and accordingly, the same are quashed. Consequences will

follow.

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this

writ petition is allowed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

pawan/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE                N/A.
Uploading Date          22.03.2020
Transmission Date       N/A.