Patna High Court
Renu Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 12 December, 2023
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6783 of 2022
======================================================
Renu Kumari Wife of Bimlesh Kumar, Resident of Village- Sakarpura
Betauna Ward No. 1, P.S. and District- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary of the Social Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
4. The District Programme Officer, Madhepura.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Madhepura, P.S. and District-
Madhepura.
6. The Lady Supervisor Block and District Madhepura.
7. Krishna Kumar wife of Naval Kumar Yadav, resident of Village Sakarpura,
Betauna Ward No. 1, P.S. and District Madhepura.
8. Latita Kumari wife of Subhasha Kumar, resident of Village Sakarpura,
Betauna Ward No. 1, P.S. and District Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shivnandan Sah, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kumari Amrita ( Gp 3 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-12-2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed
seeking the following relief:-
"(1)(i) For issuance of writ in the
nature of certiorari for direction
directing the Respondent Authorities
Patna High Court CWJC No.6783 of 2022 dt.12-12-2023
2/5
for setting aside the order dated
22.02.2022
passed by Koshi
Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa and
consequently order dated 02.08.2021
Passed by District Program Officer,
Madhepura whereby and whereunder
selection of private respondent no.8
has been illegally held to be valid."
2. At this juncture, this Court would refer to
a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Seema Kumari vs. The
State of Bihar and others, reported in (2015)
SCC Online Pat 7267, paragraphs no. 9 to 11
whereof, are reproduced herein below:-
"9. As noted above, the Anganbari
Sevika is not a government servant
and has no protection under Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India so
as to envisage the concept of regular
departmental proceeding. The
petitioner was given a notice. She
was informed about the allegation
against her. She had filed her show-
cause reply which was considered by
the District Programme officer and
when the order went against her, she
Patna High Court CWJC No.6783 of 2022 dt.12-12-2023
had also been given adequate
opportunity by the appellate authority
who, in fact, had himself got the
matter verified by referring the
matter to the Bihar Sanskrit Board.
10. In that view of the matter, this
Court would not find any error in the
impugned order of termination of the
services of the petitioner when it is
found that the petitioner had got
appointment by producing a
document in support of qualification
which was found to be
incorrect/forged.
11. Thus for the reasons indicated
above, this application must fail and
is, accordingly, 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.6783 of 2022 dt.12-12-2023
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.6783 of 2022 dt.12-12-2023
5. The writ petition stands disposed off as
not pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.12.2023
Transmission Date NA
