Patna High Court
Smt. Bholi Yadav vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7246 of 2016
======================================================
Smt. Bholi Yadav wife of Mahendra Kumar Yadav, resident of Village-
Nirmali, Panchayat Ghuran, P.S.District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social
Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna.
4. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
5. The District Magistrate, Supaul.
6. The Additional Collector, Disaster Management, Supaul.
7. The District Programme Officer, Supaul.
8. The Child Development Project Officer, Pipra, District- Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amrit Abhijat, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.A.K.Keshari, AAG-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-10-2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following relief(s) :-
"1.A) To issue a writ in the nature of
Certiorari setting aside the order dated
19.09.2013 contained in Memo No. 1447
dated 27.09.2013 passed in Case No.
195/2013 (Annexure-9) by which previous
order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the
District Programme Officer, Supaul was
affirmed and also Appellate order dated
17.03.2015 (Annexure-11) passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7246 of 2016 dt.12-10-2023
Deputy Director Welfare, Supaul in
Anganbari Appeal No.153/2014 affirming the
said order. The previous orders of both the
authorities were set-aside by this Hon'ble
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3377/2013 dated
21.02.2013 (Annexure-8) and in light of this
order after following the decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Siemens Engineer &
Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs Union of
India and another, reported in AIR 1976 SC
1785.
B) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding/directing the Respondents to
take the petitioner back in service w.e.f.
30.03.2012, the day on which she was
disengaged from her engagement."
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7246 of 2016 dt.12-10-2023
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 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."
Patna High Court CWJC No.7246 of 2016 dt.12-10-2023
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7246 of 2016 dt.12-10-2023
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 16.10.2023
Transmission Date NA
