Patna High Court
Pramila Devi @ Pramila Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 3 January, 2024
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7580 of 2022
======================================================
Pramila Devi @ Pramila Kumari Wife of Sri Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar,
resident of Village- Padarauna Khurd, P.O.- Hardiyan, P.S.- Barharia, Block-
Barharia, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, (I.C.D.S.), Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4. The District Programme Officer, I.C.D.S., Siwan.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Barharia, Siwan.
6. Ranjana Kumari Wife of Arun Kumar Yadav Resident of Village- Padarauna,
P.O.- Barharia, P.S.- Barharia, Block- Barharia, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghav Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Md. Raisul Haque ( Sc 10 )
For the respondent No.6 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate
Mr. R. C. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-01-2024
The present writ petition has been filed
seeking the following relief:-
"That this is an application on behalf of
petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari
for quashing/setting aside the order dated
08.07.2021
passed by District Magistrate,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7580 of 2022 dt.03-01-2024
Siwan in Aanganbari Appeal No. 15/19-20
(Annexure- 4) by which the order dated
11.04.2019 passed by District Programme
Officer, Siwan in Aanganbari Misc Case
No.57/17-18 (Annexure-2) has been set aside
and thereby the selection/appointment of
petitioner on the post of Aanganbari Sevika
for the Centre No.11 under Gram Panchayat
Raj- Padarauna Khurd in Siwan District has
been cancelled AND petitioner further prays
for quashing/setting aside the consequential
order bearing memo no.216 dated
30.03.2022 (Annexure-5) by which petitioner
has been terminated from the post of
Aanganbari Sevika and petitioner has been
asked to hand over the charge to private
respondent no.6."
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7580 of 2022 dt.03-01-2024
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7580 of 2022 dt.03-01-2024
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, including that of filing a
suit before the learned civil court of competent
jurisdiction. Liberty, so sought, is granted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7580 of 2022 dt.03-01-2024
5. The writ petition stands dismissed as not
pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
