Patna High Court
Manju Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 13 December, 2023
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14384 of 2021
======================================================
Manju Devi, Wife of Shambhu Ram, Resident of Village-Chhatarpur Raksi,
P.S.-Fatehpur, District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The District Programme Officer, Gaya.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Fatehpur, Gaya.
6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, North Lodhway, P.S.-Fatehpur, District-Gaya.
7. Panchayat Secretary, North Lodhway, P.S.-Fatehpur, District-Gaya.
8. Mahila Supervisor, Gram Panchayat, North Lodhway, Chhatarpur Rakshi,
P.S.-Fatehpur, District-Gaya.
9. Pinki Kumari, Wife of Pramod Paswan, Resident of Village-Ramnagar, P.S.-
Lodhway, Ward No. 7, P.S.-Fatehpur, District-Gaya.
10. Tunni Kumari, Wife of Rupesh Mistri, Resident of Village-Chhatarpur
Raksi, P.S.-Fatehpur, District-Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prashant Pratap, GP-2
Mr. Asit Kumar Jha, AC to GP-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-12-2023
The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
"1(i). For issuance of an appropriate writ in
quashing the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the
District Magistrate, Gaya in Anganbari Appeal
Case no.34/2019, whereby and whereunder the
order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the D.P.O.,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14384 of 2021 dt.13-12-2023
Gaya in Anganwadi Case no.120/307/2018 has
been set aside (contained in Annexure-5).
(ii). For issuance of an appropriate writ
commanding the respondent to issue appointment
letter in favour of the petitioner."
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14384 of 2021 dt.13-12-2023
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14384 of 2021 dt.13-12-2023
merits, only for damages.
5. The appeal is dismissed."
4. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, 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.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.12.2023
Transmission Date NA
