Patna High Court
Rina Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 5 January, 2024
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3754 of 2020
======================================================
Rina Kumari, Wife of Rajesh Mandal Resident of Village and P.O.- Bhura,
P.S.- Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social
Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director I.C.D.S., Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The District Magistrate Supaul.
5. The District Programme Officer I.C.D.S., Supaul.
6. The Block Development Officer Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
7. The Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Triveniganj, District-
Supaul.
8. The Lady Supervisor-cum- Member Secretary Selection Committee
(Anganbari), Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
9. Usha Raman Wife of Rama Nand Prasad Raman Resident of Village- Bhura,
P.S.- Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kumari Amrita (GP3 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against
the order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Supaul dated 09.11.2019 in Anganwari Appeal Case No.11/2019
as well as the order dated 07.12.2018, passed by the C.D.P.O.,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3754 of 2020 dt.05-01-2024
2/8
Triveniganj, Supaul issued vide memo No. 867.
3. The submission of the petitioner is that the said
dispute has come before this Court earlier in CWJC No. 16430
of 2016 (Usha Raman vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.).
Thereafter, the matter was remitted back, but the Collector at the
time of hearing the appeal, has left to consider that the earlier
center has been bifurcated into three centers and, accordingly,
the situation in the light of Aanganbari rules has been
completely changed, but this aspect has not been considered by
the Collector at all.
4. 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 Anganwadi 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.
5. After hearing the argument of both parties, it is
necessary for this Court to refer to the recent judgement
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:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3754 of 2020 dt.05-01-2024
3/8
"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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3754 of 2020 dt.05-01-2024
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 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."
7. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3754 of 2020 dt.05-01-2024
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."
Similarly, this Court further refers to the judgment
rendered in the case of Urmila Kumari vs. the State 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3754 of 2020 dt.05-01-2024
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."
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,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3754 of 2020 dt.05-01-2024
the claim should ordinarily be permitted, if
found good on merits, only for damages.
5. The appeal is dismissed."
6. Upon going through the aforesaid judgments,
this Court fully agrees with the observations mentioned above
that the post of Anganwadi 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.
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.
7. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the
present petition. But taking into consideration this aspect that
the present dispute has earlier come to this Hon'ble Court, this
Court only directs the petitioner to raise all the points, as raised
in the present writ petition, before the District Magistrate,
Supaul whereupon the District Magistrate, Supaul after hearing
the petitioner /aggrieved person shall pass necessary order in
this matter afresh within 90 days. It is made clear that this
liberty has been granted to the petitioner only due to the reason
that this matter was earlier came before this Hon'ble Court and
on the directions of the Hon'ble Court, this matter was sent
Patna High Court CWJC No.3754 of 2020 dt.05-01-2024
before the District Magistrate. The observation part of this order
shall not be treated as precedent.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction,
the present petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10/01/2024
Transmission Date NA
