Patna High Court
Smti. Malti Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 18 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9912 of 2015
======================================================
Smti. Malti Kumari wife of Sri Bijendra Prasad Resident of village-
Daulatpur Milki, Police Station- Chandi, Parkhand- Chandi, District-
Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif,
District-Nalanda.
2. The Director, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE I.C.D.S.
Social Welfare Department, Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna-800014
3. The District Officer, Nalanda, Collectorate Building at Bihar Sharif, District-
Nalanda, PIN Code-803101
4. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
5. The District Programme Officer, Nalanda Zila Programme Shakha, Nalanda
Collectorate, Bihar Sharif,
6. The Child Development Project Officer C.D.P.O., Chandi, Nalanda.
7. The Lady Supervisor, Daulatpur Milki, Aganbari Centre, Code 70,
Parkhand- Chandi, Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raj Nandan Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ritesh Kumar,SC-33
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-08-2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following relief :-
"1.That this petition is being filed on behalf
of the petitioner for issuance of a writ,
pursuant to giving a direction to the
Respondents concerned to reinstate the
petitioner's service of her Anganbari Sevika
after quashing the orders contained in
Annexures-11 and 14 to the writ petition by
Patna High Court CWJC No.9912 of 2015 dt.18-08-2023
which petitioner's written representation
dated 6.4.2013 under compliance of the
Hon'ble High Court's order dated 8.3.2013
passed in C.W.J.C. No.4122 of 2013
pertaining to taking DECISION afresh and
passing a REASONED Order after taking
into consideration the Show Cause Reply to
the petitioner, has malafidely and
unreasonably been denied with effect from
29.5.2013 on the untowardliness act of the
District Programme Officer Nalanda, as well
as also deliberately manner REFUSAL and
stubbornly DENIAL to be entertained the
Petitioner's Misc. (Aganwari Appeal No.19
of 2015 on the coercive and taking biased
step on the part of the District
Officer/Collector, Nalanda by going beyond
the opined Substance towards passing the
order dated 15.1.2015 "Especially when the
order in question is appealable before the
Collector" in the M.J.C. No.3920 of 2013 by
the Hon'ble High Court, and such the
refracted DENIAL recorded by Pen and
Pleasure of the Collector showing as "Appeal
to be filed before Competent Court," is bad
and quite untenable, vulnerable and without
thought at all, under Conformity With Law
and as such, the same are being the
assailable and fit to be demolished and
vitiated itself under Law."
Patna High Court CWJC No.9912 of 2015 dt.18-08-2023
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9912 of 2015 dt.18-08-2023
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9912 of 2015 dt.18-08-2023
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.
5. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
sonal/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.08.2023
Transmission Date NA
