Patna High Court
Gita Devi @ Gita Sinha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 5 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18664 of 2015
======================================================
Gita Devi @ Gita Sinha W/o Rajendra Singh R/o village- Kewali, P.s Ghosi,
District Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Principle Secretary-cum-Commissioner,
Departmental of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Deputy Director, Welfare Department , Magadh Pramandal Gaya.
3. The District magistrate cum Collector, Jehanabad.
4. The District Programme Officer, Jehanabad.
5. The Child Development Project officer, Ghosi, Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Chandra Agrawal, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-10-2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) For issuance of a writ of
certiorari for quashing of the order dt.
28.1.2014 passed by respondent
Deputy Director, Welfare, Magadh
Pramandal, Gaya whereby the
petitioner's termination from the post
of Anganbari Sewika as effected by
the respondent District Program
Officer, Jehanabad vide an order dt.
22.2.2013 has been confirmed
without any application of mind to
Patna High Court CWJC No.18664 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023
the illegalities and other irregularities
in the entire exercise apparent on the
face of record;
(b) For issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of
the order dt. 22.2.2013 passed by
respondent District Program Officer,
Jehanabad in case no. 15/2013 which
was remanded back to the
Respondent District Program Officer,
Jehanabad vide an order passed in
Case No. 19/D.M./2012 whereby the
Learned Collector, Jehanabad had set
aside the order of termination of the
Petitioner from the post of Anganwadi
Sevika, Anganewadi Centre No.41
dated 23.2.2012 passed by the
District Program Officer, Jehanabad
with a direction to pass a speaking
order considering the merits of the
case;
(c) For issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of
the order of termination dated
23.2.2012 passed by the District
whereby the petitioner has been
terminated from the post of
Anganbari Sewika for Anganbari
Patna High Court CWJC No.18664 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023
Centre No. 41 namely kewali, illegally
and arbitrarily;
(d) For issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the Respondents
to restore the petitioner to the post of
Anganbari Sewika for Anganbari
Center No. 41 namely Kewali;
(e) For a declaration that the entire
exercise of inspection conducted by
the respondents of the Anganbari
Centre of the petitioner, issuance of
show cause notice by the District
Program Officer, the termination of
the petitioner by the impugned order
dt. 23.02.2012 passed by the
respondent District Program Officer
and the impugned Appellate order dt.
28.1.2014 passed by the respondent
No.2 suffers from the illegality in the
shape of violation of principles of
natural justice as the inspecting team
having inspected the center on
30.11.2011 and 24.1.2011 raised
certain allegations against the
petitioner and issued a show cause
but without considering the reply
given by the Petitioner and order
passed by the Collector, Jehanabad in
Case No. 19/12, without application
Patna High Court CWJC No.18664 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023
of mind proceeded to terminate the
Petitioner which is a gross decision
made by the Respondents;"
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18664 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18664 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023
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 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,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18664 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023
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 disposed off as
not pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.10.2023
Transmission Date NA
