Patna High Court
Manju Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 9 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20016 of 2014
======================================================
Manju Devi W/o Kailash Prasad, resident of Village-Radhe- Bigha, P.S.-
Narhat, District-Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, I.C.D.S., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Director Welfare, Magadh Division, Gaya.
5. The District Magistrate, Nawada.
6. The District Programme Officer, Nawada.
7. The Child Development Project Officer, Narhat Nawada.
8. Ruby Kumari, W/o Dharmendra Kumar, R/o village-Radhe-Bigha, P.S.-
Narhat, District- Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-08-2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-
"1.(i) For issuance of writ of
Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction for quashing
the order dated 24.10.2014 passed
"ka"/2013 by the Deputy Director,
Welfare, Magadh Division, Gaya
(res. no- 4), whereby and
Patna High Court CWJC No.20016 of 2014 dt.09-08-2023
whereunder the order for
cancellation of petitioner selection
as Anganwari Sevika passed by the
District Program Officer, Nawada
vide order dated 21.09.2013 in
Case No. 12/13 is confirmed/upheld
without considering the fact that
petitioner selection was terminated
by District Program Officer, Nawada
contrary to the principle of natural
justice.
(ii) For quashing the order dated
21.09.2013 passed by the District
Program Officer, Nawada
(respondent no. 6) in Case
No.12/13, whereby petitioner
selection as Anganwari Sevika has
been cancelled merely on the
vague complaint filed by
respondent no. 8 without giving
any show cause or any
opportunities to being heard and it
is further prayed to reinstate the
petitioner as Anganwari Sevika."
2. At this juncture, this Court would refer to
a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari v. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.20016 of 2014 dt.09-08-2023
State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016
SCC Online Pat 9434, paragraphs no. 7 and 8
whereof are reproduced herein below:-
"7. Having considered the rival
contentions, we do not find any merit
in the present appeal. The charges
against the appellant were very clear
as would be apparent from the show
cause dated 22.02.2012, which was
issued in light of the findings in the
enquiry report as well as the relevant
documents/registers which were
required to be maintained at the
Centre. Reply given by the appellant,
copy of which has been brought on
record, does not indicate any
justification and rather it has been
stated that on 24.09.2011 at the time
of Inspection, the children were still
coming and on 07.10.2011, she
herself had gone to call the children
and during that time the inspection
was held. It was further stated by the
appellant that on 30.09.2011 she had
become ill due to being drenched by
rain. We find that such explanation is
vague and evasive and does not
inspire confidence. The spirit and
Patna High Court CWJC No.20016 of 2014 dt.09-08-2023
object of running Anganbadi Centres
cannot be overemphasized and the
purpose is to ensure the welfare of
children from the lowermost and
deprived strata of society. Any lapse
in execution of the said scheme has
to be taken very seriously. Closure of
even one day entails the beneficiaries
going without their meals, which
cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do
not find any infirmity in the decision
of the authorities cancelling her
selection as well as the procedure
adopted by them prior to passing
such order.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the
Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed."
3. It would be apt to refer to yet another
judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari v. The
State of Bihar and others, reported in 2011 (4)
PLJR 20, paragraphs no. 4 and 5 whereof are
reproduced herein below:-
"4. In our considered view, the post of
Anganbari Sevika is not a post having
Patna High Court CWJC No.20016 of 2014 dt.09-08-2023
security of tenure or protection under
Article 311 of Constitution of India.
Considering the very nature of
engagement which provides of
honorarium, we are of the view that in
case the appellant still feels
aggrieved, she may approach the
Civil Court for damages. There is
nothing at stake in such a scheme
other than honorarium. For such
contractual engagements the relief of
reinstatement is not appropriate and
even if there is breach of the scheme
or any other principle of law, the claim
should ordinarily be permitted, if
found good on merits, only for
damages.
5. The appeal is dismissed."
4. Considering the law laid down by the
learned Division Bench of this Court, as aforesaid,
the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to
press the present writ petition, however, seeks
liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such
other alternative remedies as are otherwise
available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is
granted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20016 of 2014 dt.09-08-2023
5. The writ petition stands dismissed as not
pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 11.08.2023
Transmission Date N/A
