Dismissed

Kaushami Kumari, v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Nov 2023CWJC/4522/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court referred to coordinate judgments finding Anganwadi Sevika not entitled to Article 311 protections. The petitioner withdrew pressing the writ but sought liberty for alternative remedies. Liberty was granted; the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under law. Writ petition dismissed.

Kaushami Kumari, Vs The State of Bihar — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4522 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Kaushami Kumari, W/o Awadh Kumar Singh @ Chandeshwar Yadav, R/o Village - Singhaul, P.S. - Belaganj, District - Gaya (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar, through District Magistrate, Gaya.

¶7

District Program Officer, Gaya (I.C.D.S.)

¶8

C.D.P.O., Belaganj, Gaya.

¶9

Suvi Kumari, W/o Rajnikant Kumar @ Himanshu, R/o Village - Singhaul, P.S. - Belaganj, District - Gaya (Bihar).

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Praveen Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-3 ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 23-11-2023

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed seeking

¶16

the following relief(s):-

¶17

"1.i. For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to quash/ set aside order dated 20/08/2021 issued under memo no. 2837 dated 25/10/21 passed by District Magistrate, Gaya, in Anganwadi appeal no. 14/2018 whereby and whereunder he has affirmed the order dated 18/06/2018 passed by District Program officer, Gaya in relation to Anganwadi Case No. 177/2018 filed by private respondent no.4.

¶18

ii. For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to appoint

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.4522 of 2022(2) dt.23-11-2023 2/4

¶20

petitioner as Anganwadi sevika code no.186 centre- Singhaul Panchayat- Chiralla, BlockBelaganj, Dist- Gaya forthwith since the petitioner is selected by the Aam Sabha dated 14/02/2018 since she was first in the merit list.”

¶21

At this juncture, this Court would refer to a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Seema Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. , reported in (2015) SCC Online Pat 7267 , paragraphs no. 9 to 11 whereof, are reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶22

“9. As noted above, the Anganbari Sevika is not a government servant and has no protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India so as to envisage the concept of regular departmental proceeding. The petitioner was given a notice. She was informed about the allegation against her. She had filed her showcause reply which was considered by the District Programme officer and when the order went against her, she had also been given adequate opportunity by the appellate authority who, in fact, had himself got the matter verified by referring the matter to the Bihar Sanskrit Board.

¶23

10. In that view of the matter, this Court would

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.4522 of 2022(2) dt.23-11-2023 3/4

¶25

not find any error in the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner when it is found that the petitioner had got appointment by producing a document in support of qualification which was found to be incorrect/forged.

¶26

11. Thus for the reasons indicated above, this application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.”

¶27

It would be apt to refer to yet another judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others , reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 20 , paragraphs no. 4 and 5 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

¶28

“4. In our considered view, the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of Constitution of India. Considering the very nature of engagement which provides of honorarium, we are of the view that in case the appellant still feels aggrieved, she may approach the Civil Court for damages. There is nothing at stake in such a scheme other than honorarium. For such contractual engagements the relief of reinstatement is not appropriate and even if there is breach of the scheme or any other principle of law, the claim should

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.4522 of 2022(2) dt.23-11-2023 4/4

¶30

ordinarily be permitted, if found good on merits, only for damages.

¶31

5. The appeal is dismissed.”

¶32

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter,

¶33

the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

¶34

The writ petition stands dismissed.

¶35

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

¶36

sonal/-

¶37

Kaushami Kumari, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushami Kumari, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neetu Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Vidhata Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shri Bindu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anuj Kumar Singh Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nandkishore Prasad Dube Vs The State of Bihar

Kiran Kumari Vs The State of Bihar