Patna High Court
Babita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15871 of 2015
======================================================
Babita Kumari W/o Niranjan Prasad yadav resident of Village- Fatehpur P.s
Industrial zero Mile Sabour District Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, The Human Resource
Development Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.
3. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
4. The District Programme Officer Bhagalpur.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
6. Meera Devi W/o Ram Sagar Prasad resident of Village- Fatehpur P.S
Industrial zero Mile Sabour District Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Swapnil Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-09-2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following relief(s):-
"1.That this writ petition is directed for quashing
of order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Misc. Case
No.04/ 2014-15 passed by the District Magistrate,
Bhagalpur whereby the selection of the private
respondent no.8 namely Meera Devi on the post of
Anganbari Sevika has been affirmed without
considering the facts that earlier on the direction
of Hon'ble Court passed in CWJC No.7998/04 an
enquiry was conducted and found that the
petitioner has been wrongly appointed on the post
Patna High Court CWJC No.15871 of 2015 dt.08-09-2023
of Sahaika of the Anganbari Centre, Fatehpur,
Sabour under the district of Bhagalpur against
order private respondents moved before the
Hon'ble court and filed CWJC No.3691/2006
which was disposed off on 24.03.2014 with
direction to respondent-District Magistrate,
Bhagalpur to pass fresh order in accordance with
law though on perusal of order dated 02.07.2015,
passed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur it
appears that due to time span the respondent
District Magistrate, Bhagalpur did not interfere
though it is admitted fact that the earlier
appointment on the post of Sevika of Anganbari
centre was not in accordance with the procedure."
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.15871 of 2015 dt.08-09-2023
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."
3. It would be apt to refer to yet another judgment
Patna High Court CWJC No.15871 of 2015 dt.08-09-2023
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
other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the
law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15871 of 2015 dt.08-09-2023
5. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
sonal/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.09.2023
Transmission Date NA
