Dismissed

Gita Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC19 Sept 2022CWJC/12997/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging orders cancelling her selection as a Sevika under the I.C.D.S. scheme due to friction with a Sahayika, the Patna High Court refused to interfere with the administrative decisions, stating it would not adjudicate factual disputes between non-government personnel exercising writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the cancellation of the petitioner's selection.

Gita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12997 of 2018

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Gita Devi, wife of Sri Kanhaiya Singh, resident of village- Karuaj Ward no. 5, P.S.- Dumravan, Dist- Buxar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶8

The Director, I.C.D.S. Bihar, Indra Bhawan, Boring Canal Road, Patna.

¶9

The District Collector, Buxar.

¶10

The District Programme Officer, Buxar.

¶11

The C.D.P.O. Dumravan, Buxar

¶12

... ... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal -SC3 with Mr. Arjun Prasad AC to SC-3 ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 19-09-2022

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶17

counsel for the State.

¶18

2. On inspection of the Aganwari Centre No. 122 by two authorities, one on 23.12.2016 by the Child Development Project Officer, Dumraon and second on 24.12.2016, by the Lady Supervisor, Dumraon, several irregularities were found at the Centre in question. The petitioner being Sevika was put to notice. The petitioner took a stand before the District Programme Officer, Buxar (Respondent No.5) that the Sahayika was not cooperating, and, in fact, obstructing the dissemination of social welfare measures at the Centre in-question and that this condition has been

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.12997 of 2018 dt.19-09-2022 2/4

¶20

persisting for several years. The Sahayika has similar story to tell before the District Programme Officer, Buxar, raising allegation against the petitioner. It is, under such circumstances, that the District Programme Officer, Buxar has taken a decision to direct for canceling the selection of the petitioner as well as the Sahayika for the centre in-question.

¶21

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that, in fact, it is the Sahayika, who was obstructing the dissemination of social welfare measures at the centre in-question and that she has hardly come to the centre in-question for two to three years, during the last 13 years, that she has remained as Sahayika for the center in-question. Such submissions are being made keeping in background the fact that the petitioner has also been Sevika at the Centre in- question since 2003.

¶22

4. The learned State counsel has appeared and justified the impugned order dated 18-04-2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar, in Case No. 208 of 2017, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is submitted that as a result of friction between the Sevika and Sahayika of the centre inquestion, for years together, dissemination of social welfare measures has been suffering, which is also apparent from the Report of the Lady Supervisor.

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.12997 of 2018 dt.19-09-2022 3/4

¶24

5. The Sevika and Sahayika are not Government servants. It is only for dissemination of social welfare measures under the Integrated Child Development Scheme, for which they are selected. The record shows that the dispute between the Sevika and Sahayika at the Centre in-question has obstructed dissemination of social welfare measures for the Center inquestion for years together. The decision of the District Programme Officer, Buxar, under his order 04.08.2018, for cancelling the selection of both the Sevika and Sahayika for the Center in- question, therefore, would only be, in the interest of the social welfare measures, to be disseminated at the Center inquestion by putting in place a set of functional Sevika and Sahayika .

¶25

6. This Court would also observe that the plea of lack of cooperation raised by petitioner against the Sahayika and viceversa is a factual dispute, which this Court would refrain from going into, in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶26

7. This Court would observe that no case is made out for interfering with the orders passed by the District Programme Officer, Buxar dated 04-08-2018 in Case No. 03 of 2017, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition as well as the District Magistrate, Buxar dated 18-04-2018 passed in Case No. 208 of

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.12997 of 2018 dt.19-09-2022 4/4

¶28

2017, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, affirming the conclusions of the District Programme Officer, Buxar (Respondent

¶29

No.5).

¶30

8. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶32

shyambihari/-

¶33

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	01-10-2022
Transmission Date	N/A

Gita Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gita Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rohit Kumar Ravidas Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Sushil Prasad and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.