[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Nasima Khatoon vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 February, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5681 of 2017
======================================================
Nasima Khatoon W/o Md. Mozaffar Saiyed Ansari, Resident of Village P.O.-
Madhopur Digharua, P.S.-Tajpur, District-Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur
5. The District Programme Officer, Samastipur.
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Tajpur Samastipur
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj,Madhopur Digharua.
8. The Block Development Officer, Tajpur, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumod Kumar Shrivastaw, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief (s) :-
"a) For issuance of writ of certiorari for
quashing/setting aside the order dated 30.01.2015,
02.02.2015
and 25.02.2015 by which the Respondents
ordered to the petitioner to change the place of centre
of Anganbari from the present place i.e.(Md. Lal Ka
Darwaja) to Dalan of Phul babu within 24 hours as
contained in Annexure -5 series and 7 respectively
which are arbitrary and illegal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5681 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
(b) For quashing/setting aside the order
dated 05.05.2015 passed by District Programme
Officer by which the petitioner was terminated from
service as contained in Annexure- 10 to this petition.
(c) For setting aside the order dated
17.02.2017 passed by District Magistrate Samastipur
by which the Appeal of the petitioner against the order
passed by District Programme Officer Samastipur as
contained in Annexure- 10 to this petition was
dismissed as contained in Annexure-11 to this petition.
(d) For a direction to the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in service with full back salary
from the date of her termination including all
consequential benefits.
(e) For issuance of any other writ/ writs
direction/directions; order/ orders to which the
petitioner is entitled in the ends of justice."
3. The relevant facts in brief are that the appointment
of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika at the Anganwadi Centre,
Code no.30 in Madhopur, Digharua Panchayat was set aside
vide order contained in memo no.411 dated 5.5.2015 of the
District Programme Officer, Samastipur. The appeal preferred
by the petitioner vide Anganwadi Appeal Case no.76 of 2015
has been rejected by order dated 17.2.2017 (Annexure-11)
passed by the Collector, Samastipur.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the contents of the petition, the instant
Patna High Court CWJC No.5681 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
application is being disposed of on a limited point.
5. The petitioner in paragraph no.27 of the writ
application has specifically contended that neither any show
cause was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing
given by the District Programme Officer before passing the
order of termination, impugned herein.
6. This Court having gone through the order
impugned finds no mention of any notice/show cause having
been issued to the petitioner nor any mention of the response
having been filed by the petitioner.
7. Further in response to the statement made in
paragraph no.27 of the writ application, stated herein above, the
same has been replied to by the respondents in paragraph no.21
of the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6, which is to
the effect that so far as the averment made by the petitioner in
paragraph nos. 26 to 36 of the writ application is concerned, the
same is the version of the petitioner and onus lies upon the
petitioner to prove the same. Once again there is no statement
contradicting the stand of the petitioner in paragraph no.27 of
the writ application that no show cause was served on him and
no opportunity of hearing was given by the District Programme
Officer before passing the order impugned.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5681 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
8. In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein
above, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made
out a case for interference in the order impugned.
9. The order of termination dated 5.5.2015 passed by
the District Programme Officer, Samastipur as also order dated
17.2.2017 rejecting the Anganwadi Appeal Case no.76 of 2015
by the Collector, Samastipur, both being not sustainable, are set
aside.
10. The respondents will not be constrained in
proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law.
11. The writ application stands allowed to the above
extent.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 12.02.2026
Transmission Date
