Patna High Court
Soni Devi @ Soni Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 24 February, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3251 of 2025
======================================================
Soni Devi @ Soni Kumari Wife of Birju Mahto, resident of Village- Anandi
Pathak Ka Tola, P.O.-Mushahari Form, P.S.- Mushahari, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director Integrated Child Development Services, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur.
6. The District Welfare Officer, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Child Development Project Officer, Mushahari (Rural), District-
Muzaffarpur.
8. The Lady Supervisor C.D.P.O. Officer, Mushahari Rural District-
Muzaffarpur.
9. Resham Devi, Wife of Amar Nath Mahto, resident of Village- Mushahari
alias Radha Nagar, P.S.- Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-02-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated
22.08.2024
passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner,
Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur passed in ICDS Revision Case No.
283 of 2023, whereby the revision case has been allowed in
favour of the private respondent no. 9; The petitioner also
sought quashing of the consequential order of the Child
Patna High Court CWJC No.3251 of 2025 dt.24-02-2025
Development Project Officer (hereinafter referred to as
"CDPO"), whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the
post of Anganwadi Sahayika in the light of the aforenoted
revisional order.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the
materials available on record submitted that in pursuant to an
advertisement published under the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika
Guidelines, 2019 the petitioner along with others submitted their
application for the post of Anganwadi Sahayika. A meeting of
Aam Sabha was held on 07.11.2019, however, it was postponed
due to some reasons, as mentioned in the writ petition. The
second meeting of Aam Sabha was held on 14.11.2019 and the
petitioner was unanimously selected to the post of Anganwadi
Sahayika. The second meeting, however, was also came to be
postponed due to interference of the husband of one Sevika.
4. The CDPO, Mushahari on account of the aforesaid
fact, cancelled the earlier advertisement for selection to the post
of Sahayika and issued a fresh advertisement vide Memo No.
114 dated 18.01.2021. Against the fresh advertisement, two
candidates applied for selection to the post of Sahayika in
Centre No. 250. The petitioner and the private respondent no. 9,
who belong to Extremely Backward Class (EBC) applied for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3251 of 2025 dt.24-02-2025
post of Sahayika. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
private respondent, whose name appeared at serial no. 1 in the
merit list, has provided information in her online application,
especially in Clause-8 thereof, and admitted that she has been
convicted by the Court. Despite the aforesaid facts, the private
respondent no. 9 was selected in the meeting of Aam Sabha in
complete violation of the guidelines.
5. The petitioner on being aggrieved approached
before the CDPO, Mushahari by filing Case No. 01 of 2024. On
being found the contention of the petitioner substantiated, the
selection of the private respondent no. 9 stood cancelled.
Notwithstanding the cancellation of the selection of private
respondent no. 9, and despite the petitioner being a suitable and
eligible candidate to be selected to the post, in question, when
she has not been allowed such post, the petitioner preferred
Appeal Case No. 08 of 2023, which finally came to be allowed
in favour of the petitioner and direction was issued to the
CDPO, Mushahari to issue selection letter to the petitioner vide
order as contained in Memo No. 1787 dated 26.06.2023. It is
this order, which was questioned before the Divisional
Commissioner in ICDS Revision Case No. 283 of 2023, by the
private respondent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3251 of 2025 dt.24-02-2025
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that
the Divisional Commissioner has failed to consider that the
information provided by the private respondent no. 9, in Clause-
8 of the application form that she has been convicted by the
Court, but conversely he treated it to be a clerical mistake, and
thus allowed the revision application by setting-aside the order
of the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur. The learned
Advocate further urged that apart from complete violation of the
prescriptions of the guidelines, 2019, the respondent no. 9 was
not the candidate for the first advertisement and she has
submitted her application in the subsequent advertisement and
for this reason also, her candidature was not required to be
considered. It is also contended that once the respondent herself
admitted that she has been convicted from the Court, in no
circumstances, her fresh application or any affidavit is required
to be considered.
7. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
referring to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner
has contended that it is the admitted position that the private
respondent no. 9 had secured more marks than the petitioner and
it was a clerical mistake, which took place at the time of
submission of online form and later on, when the enquiry was
Patna High Court CWJC No.3251 of 2025 dt.24-02-2025
conducted, it has been found that the private respondent no. 9 is
not facing any criminal case.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the learned Advocate for the respective parties and
after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find
any error in the impugned order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. It is admitted
position that there is no material on record to support that the
private respondent had/has ever been facing any criminal case,
which fact has also been verified by the authorities concerned
and, later on, the admission on the part of the petitioner in her
On-line form has been found to be a clerical error. It is also the
admitted position that the private respondent had secured more
marks than the petitioner and thus better suitable candidate to
the petitioner; so far the error, which has been occurred by the
private respondent at the time of submission of On-line
application, that has immediately rectified, when the private
respondent came to know the same by filing an affidavit in the
Aam Sabha to the effect that she has neither been convicted at
any point of time nor any criminal case is pending.
9. Time without number, the Apex Court as well as
this Court have held that Anganwadi workers do not hold civil
Patna High Court CWJC No.3251 of 2025 dt.24-02-2025
post, being not statutory post, having created under scheme,
inasmuch as they do not carry on any statutory function of the
State. The entire selection process and the service conditions of
Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika are being governed under the
Guidelines/Schemes issued time to time by the State
Government in the Department of Social Welfare and thus what
is mostly required to be followed is the principles of natural
justice and fair treatment, which in the case in hand, has been
followed.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this
Court does not find any reason or occasion to interfere with the
impugned order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in ICDS Revision
Case No. 283 of 2023.
11. The writ petition stands dismissed.
12. The parties shall bear their own cost.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
