Patna High Court
Saloni Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 8 January, 2024
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12635 of 2023
======================================================
Saloni Kumari Wife of Vijay Kumar Sah, Resident of village- Mujra, P.O. and
Police Station- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social and Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Division Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.
5. The District Programme Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
6. The Block Development Officer, Ramnagar, District- West Champaran,
Bettiah.
7. The Child Development Project Officer, Ram Nagar, District- West
Champaran, Bettiah.
8. Roushani Raj Wife of Navin Kumar Jaiswal, Resident of resident of village-
Mujra, P.O. and Police Station- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prashant Pratap (Gp2)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-01-2024
The present writ petition has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-
"That this present writ application is
being filed for setting aside the order
dated 18.05.2003 passed by the
Division Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur in I.C.D.S.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12635 of 2023 dt.08-01-2024
2/5
Revision Case No.- 89 of 2021,
whereby and whereunder the revision
filed by the private respondent has
been allowed and the order dated-
07.10.2021
passed in Appeal No.115
of 2020 by the District Programme
Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah has
been set aside."
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.12635 of 2023 dt.08-01-2024
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.12635 of 2023 dt.08-01-2024
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, including that of filing a
suit before the learned Civil Court having
competent jurisdiction. Liberty, so sought, is
granted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12635 of 2023 dt.08-01-2024
5. The writ petition stands disposed off as
not pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
