Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Phuljhari Kumari on 10 July, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.48 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social
Welfare, government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Indira Bhawan, Ramcharitra Singh Path, Bailey
Road, Patna- 1.
3. The Director, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Patna, District- Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, District- Bhojpur.
6. The District Programme Officer, Bhojpur, District- Bhojpur.
7. The Child Development Project Officer, Bakhtiarpur Block Agoan District-
Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Phuljhari Kumari, W/o Sri Vinod Ram, R/o Village- Tarachak, P.s.-Azimabad,
District- Bhojpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramashray Ray, AC to AAG-11
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-07-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for review of order dated 11.03.2019
passed passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12079 of
2014 by which the writ application preferred
against the order dt. 26.04.2014 passed by
the Deputy Director, Social Welfare
Patna High Court C. REV. No.48 of 2020 dt.10-07-2025
2/7
Department, Patna in Anganbari Appeal No.
13 of 2012-13 and the order dt. 26.04.2012
of the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur
by which the appointment of writ petitioner
as Anganbari Sevika was terminated, has
been set aside/quashed with direction to
reinstate the writ petitioner with
consequential benefit suffers from error
"Suppressio veri" apparent on the face of
record warranting dismissal of the writ
petition.
3. The matter relates to Anganbari Centre,
Tarachak (Centre Code No.110) under Agiwan in the district
of Bhojpur where the writ petitioner Phuljhari Kumari, the sole
opposite party came to be appointed as an Aanganbari Sevika.
4. An inspection of the center took place on
13.02.2012
and having not found Sevika/Sahaika at the center
and alleging that the meal was also not prepared, the writ
petitioner-opposite party was put on notice by the District
Programme Officer, Bhojpur at Ara vide letter no. 540 dated
28.04.2012.
5. The lady gave reply on 07.05.2012 annexing the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.48 of 2020 dt.10-07-2025
prescription of the Doctor to show that she was indisposed
suffering from stomach disorder and the absence was not
intentional. She thus prayed for exoneration from the charges.
6. Subsequently, the order of termination dated
26.04.2012 was issued by the District Programme Officer,
Bhojpur recording that the explanation has not been found to be
satisfactory (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
7. An appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority
came to be dismissed on 26.04.2014 by the Deputy Director,
Patna Division, Patna which followed the writ petition.
8. The writ court having gone through the facts of this
case and taking note of an order of Sabita Kumari vs. State of
Bihar & Ors (C.W.J.C. No. 308 of 2015) held that extreme
penalty of removal in the case of 'Aanganbari Sewika' for one
day absence is grossly disproportionate to the
allegation/misconduct found at the time of inspection.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed vide an order dated
11.03.2019.
9. Instead of complying with the order of the Court,
the State respondent chose to file the present review petition in
the year 2020 and in these circumstance, the matter has come
before this Court.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.48 of 2020 dt.10-07-2025
10. It is again to be noted that for four years, the
review petitioner-State chose to keep the case defective so that
the same is not taken up. In that circumstance, on 26.10.2024, a
coordinate bench passed an order to remove the defects within
four weeks. As it was a peremptory order and the State failed
to comply the order, it stood dismissed on 23.11.2024.
11. Thereafter, MJC No. 4475 of 2024 (Restoration)
was filed which was allowed vide an order dated 27.06.2025.
Only thereafter, this review petition has seen the light of the day.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
review has been filed on the ground that during the pendency of
the writ petition and before the order was passed by the writ
court on 11.03.2019, another selection was made and in that
circumstance, when the seat is/was not vacant, the respondents
are/were unable to comply the order.
13. In support of the case, learned State counsel took
this Court to the selection process dated 03.11.2016 to show that
one Nisha Kumari was selected for the said center/post. It is to
be noted that the new incumbent, Nisha Kumari has not
challenged the order of the writ court.
14. This Court has gone through the said selection
process dated 03.11.2016 and has further taken note of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.48 of 2020 dt.10-07-2025
paragraph-1 which read as follows:
(1½ bl in ij iwoZ p;u;qDr lsfodk dk U;k;ky; esa
okn py jgk gSA vkns"k ikfjr gksus ij U;k;ky; vkns "k
ds vkyksd esa ;g p;u izHkkfor gksxkA
15. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the
Committee selecting the lady Nisha Kumari took utmost care in
recording/informing the candidate that her selection shall be
subject to the final outcome of the writ petition filed by
Phuljhari Kumari.
16. Further, it is to be noted that a Division Bench of
Patna High Court of which this Court was also a member in the
case of Smt. Sima Devi vs. State of Bihar (LPA No. 991 of
2019) vide an order dated 01.09.2022 allowed the claim of the
terminated 'Aanganbari Sevika' holding that the show cause
filed by her denying the allegation was not taken note of nor a
proper enquiry followed and in that background, mere
satisfaction of the respondent has to go. The Court further held
that the Appellate Court merely approved the order without
applying his own mind. Further, while reinstating Smt. Sima
Devi, selection letter incorporated a clause that the selection
shall be affected by the order of the Appellate Court.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.48 of 2020 dt.10-07-2025
17. Clearly, the State is playing game. Despite the
Selection Committee informing the new incumbent about her
selection being subject to final outcome of the writ petition filed
by the sole opposite party, Phuljhari Kumari; instead of allowing
the writ petitioner to enjoy the fruits of the order passed by the
writ court in the year 2019, after much delay, a civil review was
filed in the year 2020.
18. It was kept pending for four years, the
peremptory order dated 28.10.2024 for removing the defect was
not complied, it stood dismissed 23.11.2024. Later, a
restoration petition was filed which came to be allowed on
27.06.2025, whereafter, the civil review has come before this
Court. In the entire process, it is Phuljhari Kumari who has
silently suffered despite having won the battle in the year 2019.
19. Accordingly, the Civil Review petition is
dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the District
Programme Officer, ICDS, Bhojpur and to be handed over to the
lady, Phuljhari Kumari within a period of four weeks from
today. She be further reinstated as the 'Aanganbari Sevika'
forthwith. Failure to do so, the lady is free to file contempt
petition against the respondents.
20. Needless to add, the review petitioners
Patna High Court C. REV. No.48 of 2020 dt.10-07-2025
respondents shall be free to realise the aforesaid amount from
the Officer who took the decision to file civil review petition
despite the selection order clearly specifying that the selection
process shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition
filed by the writ petitioner.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.07.2025
Transmission Date 14.07.2025
