Sarita Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4783 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18775 of 2014
      ======================================================

Sarita Devi, Wife of Dinesh Paswan, Resident of Village Lalganj Tola, P.O. Khairha, District- Rohtas, Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

2. The Secretary, Patna Division, Patna

3. The Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna

4. The Deputy Collector, Legal, Rohtas, Sasaram

5. The District Programming Officer, Rohtas

6. Child Development Programming Officer, Dehri, Gramin, Rohtas

7. Mukhiya, Lalganj Tola, Mathuri Panchayat, Dehri, Rohtas

8. Panchayat Secretary, Lalganj Tola, Ward No. 7, Dehri, Mathuri Panchayat, Gramin, Rohtas ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Verma, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Singh, SC 21 ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

Date : 05-12-2022

Heard Mr. Uma Shankar Verma, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Anuradha Singh, learned SC 21 for the State.

2. The petitioner has moved this Court for the following

reliefs:

"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and cancel the order dated 20.06.2014 (Annex-7 hereof) passed in Aanganbari Appeal No. 16/2012 passed by learned Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna whereby and where under appeal arose from representation of petitioner for felicitating her joining on the post of Aanganbari Sevika at Mohalla / Tola Panchayat - Lalganj, Centre No. 111, Mathuri, Dehri (Rural), Rohtas has been dismissed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18775 of 2014 dt.05-12-2022

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to felicitate the joining of petitioner on the post of Aanganbari Sevika on the aforesaid Aanganbari Centre in view of the decision of Aanganbari (Selection Committee) held on 05.03.2010 the proceeding there of is Annexure-1 of this application.

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ to hold and declare that the selection of the petitioner on the post of Aanganbari Sevika on the aforesaid contre through the proper proceeding of Aam Sabha, in presence of all members of selection committee, held on 05.03.2010, is legal and valid. As such selection of petitioner is well sustainable and viable in the eye of law.

(iv) To grant any other reliefs for which petitioner is entitled to have in connection with aforesaid reliefs."

3. The simple point for consideration before the Court is

whether the resolution by which the petitioner was selected as an

Aanganbadi Sevika is proper and legal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

though the requirement is that the Mukhiya would head the

meeting but in his absence the Upmukhiya can also do the same

and in the videography of the meeting, both the Mukhiya and

Upmukhiya were present but if they have not signed, the petitioner

cannot be visited with the penal consequences due to inaction on

the part of the Mukhiya and Upmukhiya.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the

Mukhiya and Upmukhiya being present in the meeting and not Patna High Court CWJC No.18775 of 2014 dt.05-12-2022

signing clearly shows that there was no such resolution and the

entire recommendation of the Committee is a farce.

6. Having considered the rival contention, the Court is in

agreement with the submissions of learned State Counsel.

7. Without going into the factual aspects, the admitted

position remains that neither the Mukhiya nor the Upmukhiya who

were admittedly present on the date of the meeting have signed the

meeting under which the petitioner was appointed. Thus, there

cannot be any question of sustaining such appointment and rightly

the petitioner has been disengaged.

8. For reasons aforesaid, the Court does not find any

merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same stands

dismissed.

9. However, the dismissal of the present writ petition

shall not prejudice the petitioner if and when she takes part in any

process for appointment which shall be considered on its own

merit, in accordance with law.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

( Harish Kumar, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T