Patna High Court
Rekha Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 30 January, 2024
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22482 of 2018
======================================================
Rekha Devi Wife of Sanjay Ram Resident of Village-Murli, Ward No.2,
Rasalpur Gram Panchayat, P.s. Banma Itahari, District Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar,
Patna.
2. Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
3. District Magistrate, Saharsa.
4. District programme officer, Saharsa.
5. Child Development Project Officer, Banma Itahari, P.S. Banma Itahari,
District-Saharsa.
6. Kumari Rambha, Wife of Surya Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village-Murli,
Ward No.3, Gram Panchayat Rasalpur, P.S. Banma Itahari, District-Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate
Mr. Subesh Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Raisul Haque- Sc10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing the order dated 21.10.2018 of
Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, passed in Anganbari
Appeal No.141 of 2013 setting aside the order of the learned
District Magistrate, Saharsa passed in Anganbari Appeal No.100
of 2011 restoring the appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari
Patna High Court CWJC No.22482 of 2018 dt.30-01-2024
Sevika.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the
consistent finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
Hon'ble Patna High Court that the post of Anganbari Sevika is
not a post in the government service nor this is a post under the
State services, as such, the present petitioner may not claim
protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
4. After hearing the argument of both parties, it is
necessary for this Court to refer to the recent judgment rendered
in the case of Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh vs. the State of
Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024(1) BLJ 178, paragraphs 5, 6,
7 and 8 whereof are reproduced as under:-
"5. This Court would also refer to
a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681 (State of
Karnataka and others v. Ameerbi and Others),
wherein it has been held that the post of
Anganwadi workers are not statutory post and
they have been created in terms of the Scheme as
also the Anganwadi workers are not holders of
civil post since they do not carry on any function
of the State as they do not hold post under a
statute, their posts are not created, recruitment
rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of
the State are not applicable in their case, hence,
the State is not required to comply with the
constitutional scheme of equality, as enshrined
Patna High Court CWJC No.22482 of 2018 dt.30-01-2024
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
"6. This Court also deems it fit
and proper to 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 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 Anganbari Centers 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.22482 of 2018 dt.30-01-2024
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."
5. 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."
6. Similarly, this Court further refers to the
judgment rendered in the case of Urmila Kumari vs. the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.22482 of 2018 dt.30-01-2024
of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024(1) BLJ 361, paragraphs 9
and 10 whereof are reproduced as under :-
"9. Another aspect of the matter is
that the post of Anganbari Sevika is neither a post
having security of tenure nor a civil post, hence it
is sufficient that after due notice to the petitioner
and hearing her, an order is passed, whereafter
adequate opportunity is granted by the appellate
authority and in case the incumbent is still
aggrieved, she may approach the learned Civil
Court of competent jurisdiction. In this
connection, it would be apt to refer to a judgment
rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Seema Kumari vs. The State of Bihar
& Ors., reported in (2015) SCC Online Pat 7267,
paragraphs nos. 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.22482 of 2018 dt.30-01-2024
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."
"10. It would also be gainful 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 & Ors.,
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."
7. Upon going through the aforesaid judgments,
this Court fully agrees with the observations mentioned above
that the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post in the
Government service, and as such the private respondents cannot
claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.22482 of 2018 dt.30-01-2024
The State is not required to comply with the constitutional
scheme of equality, as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. This Court also agrees with this view that
the aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court for damages.
8. In this view of the matter, this Court finds no
merit in the present petition and, accordingly, this writ petition
is hereby disposed off with liberty to avail remedy before
appropriate forum.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.02.2024
Transmission Date NA
