Patna High Court
Sulekha Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 9 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19938 of 2014
======================================================
Sulekha Kumari wife of Sri Rajesh Kumar resident of village Mohan Bigha
Ward No. 2 P.O. Baina, Anchal and P.S. Kako, District Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna
2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Project Scheme, Patna
3. Deputy Director, Welfare, Magadh Division, Gaya
4. District Magistrate, Jehanabad
5. District Programme Officer, Jehanabad
6. Child Development Project Officer, Kako, District Jehanabad
7. Smt. Rina Kumari wife of Sri Santosh Kumar resident of village Mohan
Bigha, P.o. Baina Anchal and P.S. Kako, District Jehanabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha, 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 relief:-
"1. That the instant writ petition is
being filed for issuance of an
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/ directions specially writ in
the nature of Certiorari for quashing
the order dated 26.9.2014 passed by
Deputy Director Welfare, Magadh
Division, Gaya in Anganwari Appeal
Case No. 47 Ka'/2014 (Rina Kumari
Patna High Court CWJC No.19938 of 2014 dt.09-08-2023
Vs. Sulekha Kumari and others)
whereby and whereunder the
selection of the petitioner on the post
of Anganwari Sevika of village Mohan
Bigha (Ward no.2), Jehanabad has
been terminated by setting aside the
order dated6.1.2014 passed by
District Programme Officer,
Jehanabad in Misc. Case No. 01/14
and in her place Rina Kumari,
respondent no. 7 has been directed
to be selected on the post of Sevika
which is absolutely erroneous and
bad in law."
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19938 of 2014 dt.09-08-2023
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19938 of 2014 dt.09-08-2023
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19938 of 2014 dt.09-08-2023
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.
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
