[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Mamta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 21 January, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12495 of 2013
======================================================
Mamta Kumari W/O Shri Nawal Prasad Singh Resident Of Chauhatta, Chhipi
Tola Ward No. 32, Hajipur, District Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
3. The District Magistrate/Collector, Vaishali At Hajipur
4. The District Programme Officer, Vaishali At Hajipur
5. Ward Councillor-Cum-President, Aangan Bari Sevika Selection Committee,
Ward No. 32, Hajipur Municip
6. Smt. Rita Devi W/O Late Shyam Nandan Singh Resident Of Chhipi Tola,
Hajipur
7. C.D.P.O., Hazipur, Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate
Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-01-2026
In today's cause list, the present matter has been
listed along with CWJC No. 12384 of 2024, CWJC No. 18365
of 2014, CWJC No. 1004 of 2023, CWJC No. 2927 of 2023,
CWJC No. 5349 of 2023, CWJC No. 6323 of 2023, CWJC
No. 12517 of 2024 and CWJC No. 17312 of 2024. However,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues
involved in the present case are different from those involved
in the batch cases and, therefore, prays that the present matter
be heard separately.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12495 of 2013 dt.21-01-2026
2. Learned counsel for the respondents also agrees
with the contention advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. In view of the above, the present matter is being
heard separately after de-tagging it from the aforesaid batch
cases.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the Stated and learned counsel for the respondent
No.6.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the order passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012 is purely
technical in nature, whereby the appeal was not entertained
solely on the ground that the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a
post having security of tenure or protection under Article 311
of the Constitution of India. The Commissioner, while passing
the said order, granted liberty to the petitioner that, if she still
felt aggrieved, she might approach the Civil Court for
damages.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition,
the legal position has undergone a change, and vide judgment
Patna High Court CWJC No.12495 of 2013 dt.21-01-2026
passed in the case of Julee Kumari v. The State of Bihar,
reported in (2023) 2 PLJR 253, it has been held that disputes
relating to Anganbari Sevika are now maintainable on merits.
7. It is, thus, crystal clear that Annexure-8, being
the order passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012, was not
passed on merits but on a technical ground. In view of the
changed position of law, this Court hereby sets aside the order
passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in
Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012 and remands the matter back
to the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur with a
direction to pass a reasoned order on merits after hearing all
concerned parties, including the petitioner and the private
respondent No. 6, upon their appearance. The final order on
merits shall be passed within a period of 90 days from the date
of appearance of the concerned parties.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
present writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
