[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Meena Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5115 of 2014
======================================================
Meena Devi W/O Rajesh Kumar Pandey Resident Of Village And P.O. Don,
Police Station - Darauli, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, I.C.D.S. Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. District Magistrate, Siwan
5. District Programme Officer, Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Vardhan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to A.A.G.3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-05-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting
aside the order dated 07.12.2012, passed by the District
Magistrate, Siwan in Misc. Case No.29/2007-08, by which the
District Magistrate directed for termination of service of the
petitioner from the post of Aanganbari Sahaika.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in terms of order dated 16.07.2007, passed in C.W.J.C. No.460
of 2004 (Lalita Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and its
analogous cases, in which one Kumari Kusum Kuswaha @
Kumari Kusum had also filed C.W.J.C. No.15834 of 2005, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5115 of 2014 dt.12-05-2026
writ petition was disposed of by remitting the matters to the
District Magistrates of the concerned districts. The District
Magistrates were directed to consider the case relating to
selection/removal or complain relating to the selection
procedure. The petitioners were directed to file affidavited
objections/complaints before the District Magistrate within eight
weeks from the date of passing of the order as per the provisions
contained in 2006 guideline and the District Magistrate was
directed to pass order, observing procedure as prescribed under
Clause 8, 9 and 10 of 2006 guideline, giving opportunity of
hearing to the parties. Direction was also given to the District
Magistrates to pass speaking order within four weeks from the
date of filing of such objection/complaint and the order was to
be communicated to the concerned party through registered
post. The District Magistrate was further directed that, in case
some order is passed relating to selection/removal of the
Aaganbari Sewika/Sahaika, a fresh selection process must be
completed within four weeks from the date of passing such
order by the District Magistrate. It was further directed that in
case an appeal is preferred before the Commissioner against the
order passed by the District Magistrate, the appeal should also
be decided after giving proper opportunity to other party within
Patna High Court CWJC No.5115 of 2014 dt.12-05-2026
a period of one month from the date of filing of such appeal.
4. It appears that Kumari Kusum Kuswaha, the
petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.15834 of 2005 preferred Misc. Case
No.29/2007-08, whereby the appointment of the petitioner was
challenged. It is the case of the petitioner that the said appeal
was filed beyond the eight weeks period, i.e., after a delay of
two days and the same was accepted by the District Magistrate
and a reasoned order was passed, whereby the selection of the
petitioner as Aanganbari Sewika was cancelled and the District
Programme Officer was directed to initiate fresh selection
process in accordance with law. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate
was not competent to condone the delay in terms of 2006 Rules
and in terms of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court.
5. It appears that the present writ petition has been
filed without impleading the complainant therein, i.e., Kumari
Kusum Kuswaha @ Kumari Kusum and further as per the order
dated 16.07.2007 itself, passed in C.W.J.C. No.460 of 2004 and
its analogous cases it was directed that any party aggrieved with
the order of the District Magistrate can file an appeal before the
Commissioner within four weeks. In the present case, no such
appeal was ever filed by the petitioner and she has also not
Patna High Court CWJC No.5115 of 2014 dt.12-05-2026
impleaded Kumari Kusum Kuswaha @ Kumari Kusum as
party-respondent in the present writ petition.
6. Considering the above, this Court finds that the
writ petition filed by the petitioner is thoroughly misconceived
and is fit to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.05.2026
Transmission Date NA
