Dismissed

Mina Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Oct 2014L.P.A/1095/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the cancellation of an appellant's appointment as Anganbari Sevika. The Court upheld the Single Judge's view that the applicable State Government guidelines were directory, not mandatory, due to the non-consequential delay in passing the impugned order. Thus, the appeal was rejected for no error of law or fact.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mina Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1095 of 2014 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2489 of 2014

¶3

====================================================== Mina Devi, wife of Kedarnath Ram, resident of village - Bajitpur, Harizan Tola, P.S. Bihta, District – Patna. .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶4

The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

¶5

The District Magistrate, Patna.

¶6

The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Patna

¶7

The District Programme Officer, Patna.

¶8

The Block Development Officer, Bihta, District – Patna.

¶9

The Child Development Project officer, Bihta, District – Patna. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Kumar, SC-13

¶10

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 02 16-10-2014 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of the Letters Patent Appeal by which challenge has been made against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2489 of 2014. This Intra Court appeal was listed under the heading for orders for stay. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, in our view, no purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending. Accordingly, with consent of parties, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

¶11

Patna High Court LPA No.1095 of 2014 (02) dt.16-10-2014

¶12

- 2 -

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who was the writ petitioner, was duly selected and appointed as Anganbari Sevika. Upon recommendation of the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), pursuant to an inspection conducted by her, the District Programme Officer, after issuance of notice to the appellant, cancelled her appointment. The appeal and the revision have also been dismissed. He submits that the authorities failed to notice the provisions of Clause-10.7 of 2011 guidelines issued by the State Government, inasmuch as it is provided that order, cancelling the appointment for any dereliction, is to be passed within 30 days. In the present case, the order was passed by the District Programme Officer after a delay of about three months and, thus, in violation of the said clause. The learned Single Judge has held that the guidelines issued by the State Government are directory in nature and not mandatory. He submits that such a finding in law is unsustainable.

¶14

Having considered the matter, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error of law or fact committed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition is a petition for judicial review. The Court is not sitting as Appellate Court for deciding issues of facts. From the facts, it

¶15

Patna High Court LPA No.1095 of 2014 (02) dt.16-10-2014

¶16

¶17

is clear that the principle of natural justice has complied with though there is delay in passing of the final order. The guidelines of the year 2011 issued by the State Government clearly shows that these are mere guidelines for exercise of jurisdiction which can be exercised in a judicious manner. It cannot be said that they are mandatory inasmuch as if no order is passed within 30 days, the proceeding would itself lapse. There is no consequence provided in the said clause. The guidelines being directory have been substantially complied. That being so, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶18

Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.

¶19

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)

¶20

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.)

¶21

Trivedi/-

¶22

Mina Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mina Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Satish Kumar and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Subodh Mishra and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Lal Bahadur Sah Vs State

Savitri Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ashok Rai and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Wakil Rai and Ors. Vs State of Bihar