Patna High Court
Usha Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 15 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17288 of 2015
======================================================
Usha Devi W/o- Pramod Kumar, R/o Vill- Madarna, Panchayat- Madarna,
Block- Vaishali, P.S.- Vaishali, Distt- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director, Department of Social Welfare Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali.
4. The District Programme Officer, Vaishali.
5. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Hajipur, Distt- Vaishali.
6. The Block Development Officer, Vaishali Block, Distt- Vaishali.
7. The Child Development Programme Officer Vaishali Block Distt- Vaishali.
8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayt Raj Madarna, Vaishali Block, Distt- Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 15-09-2023
The present writ petition has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. i. To quash the order dated
17.11.11 passed by the District
Programme Officer in Case
No.27/2011 whereby and
whereunder the selection of the
petitioner has been cancelled. A copy
of order dated 17.11.11 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure-1
to this application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17288 of 2015 dt.15-09-2023
ii. To further quash the order dated
12.02.13 passed by the District
Magistrate Vaishali, in Case No. R-
83/2011-12 whereby and whereunder
the Appeal petition of the petitioner
has been rejected. A copy of order
dated 12.02.13 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure-2 to this
application.
iii. To further direct the Respondents
to reinstate the petitioner with
consequential benefit."
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 vs.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17288 of 2015 dt.15-09-2023
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17288 of 2015 dt.15-09-2023
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 rendered by the learned Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari vs. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17288 of 2015 dt.15-09-2023
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.
5. The writ petition stands dismissed as not
pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 16.09.2023
Transmission Date N/A
