Dismissed¶48

Farzana Khatun v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Jan 2024CWJC/3549/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganbari Sevika not a post in government service; no Article 311 protection; Articles 14 and 16 equality scheme not applicable to ICDS/Anganwadi scheme engagements; writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; remedy limited to damages before Civil Court; honorarium-based contractual engagement; Aam Sabha; Annexure-6; CDPO Chausa; District Programme Officer Buxar; ICDS; Parvati Devi 2024(1) BLJ 178; Urmila Kumari 2024(1) BLJ 361; Neetu Kumari 2011 (4) PLJR 20; Seema Kumari (2015) SCC Online Pat 7267; Babita Kumari 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi (2007) 11 SCC 681; Patna High Court CWJC 3549/2020; Dr. Anshuman.

What did the court decide?

The post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post in the Government service, and as such the private respondents cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

Farzana Khatun Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable, given the consistent finding that the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post in the government service nor a post under the State services, so that the petitioner may not claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post in the Government service, and as such the private respondents cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality, as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in respect of Anganbari Sevika engagements.

¶46

Key takeaways

The aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court for damages.ratio¶46
Finding no merit in the present petition, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J), oral order dated 11-01-2024, dismissed CWJC No.3549 of 2020 (Farzana Khatun v. The State of Bihar and others) as not maintainable. The petitioner had sought a direction to the Child Development Project Officer, Chausa (respondent no. 6) to fix a date for Aam Sabha and to dispose of her application contained in Annexure-6. Relying on Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh v. State of Bihar (2024(1) BLJ 178) and Urmila Kumari v. State of Bihar (2024(1) BLJ 361), and the authorities reproduced therein (State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC 681; Babita Kumari, 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434; Neetu Kumari, 2011 (4) PLJR 20; Seema Kumari, (2015) SCC Online Pat 7267), the Court held that the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post in the Government service, that claimants to such post cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, that the State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality under Articles 14 and 16 for such scheme-based honorarium engagements, and that an aggrieved incumbent may pursue damages before the Civil Court rather than relief through writ jurisdiction.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3549 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Farzana Khatun Wife of Samsuddin, Resident of Village- Kothgharwa, Chausa, Police Station- Buxar (Muffasil), District- Buxar- 802114

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Patna.

¶7

The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme (I.C.D.S.), Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Collector, Buxar.

¶9

The District Programme Officer, Buxar.

¶10

The Circle Officer, Chausa, District- Buxar.

¶11

The Child Development Project Officer, Chausa, District- Buxar.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nil Kamal For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Raisul Haque (Sc10) ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 11-01-2024

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed directing the respondent no. 6 to fix a date for Aam Sabha and further to dispose of the application of the petitioner contained in Annexure-6

¶18

Learned counsel for the State submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the consistent finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble Patna High Court that the post of Anganbari Sevika is

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.3549 of 2020(2) dt.11-01-2024 2/7

¶20

not a post in the government service nor this is a post under the State services, as such, the present petitioner may not claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

After hearing the argument of both parties, it is necessary for this Court to refer to the recent judgment rendered in the case of Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh vs. the State of Bihar and Ors . reported in 2024(1) BLJ 178 , p aragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced as under:-

¶22

“5. This Court would also refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681 (State of Karnataka and others v. Ameerbi and Others), wherein it has been held that the post of Anganwadi workers are not statutory post and they have been created in terms of the Scheme as also the Anganwadi workers are not holders of civil post since they do not carry on any function of the State as they do not hold post under a statute, their posts are not created, recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case, hence, the State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality, as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

“6. This Court also deems it fit and proper to refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434, paragraphs no. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.3549 of 2020(2) dt.11-01-2024 3/7

¶25

herein below:-

¶26

“7. Having considered the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The charges against the appellant were very clear as would be apparent from the show cause dated 22.02.2012, which was issued in light of the findings in the enquiry report as well as the relevant documents/registers which were required to be maintained at the Centre. Reply given by the appellant, copy of which has been brought on record, does not indicate any justification and rather it has been stated that on 24.09.2011 at the time of Inspection, the children were still coming and on 07.10.2011, she herself had gone to call the children and during that time the inspection was held. It was further stated by the appellant that on 30.09.2011 she had become ill due to being drenched by rain. We find that such explanation is vague and evasive and does not inspire confidence. The spirit and object of running Anganbari Centers cannot be overemphasized and the purpose is to ensure the welfare of children from the lowermost and deprived strata of society. Any lapse in execution of the said scheme has to be taken very seriously. Closure of even one day entails the beneficiaries going without their meals, which cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the authorities cancelling her selection as well as the procedure adopted by them prior to passing such order.

¶27

“8. For the reasons aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.”

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.3549 of 2020(2) dt.11-01-2024 4/7

¶29

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:-

¶30

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

¶31

“5. The appeal is dismissed.”

¶32

Similarly, this Court further refers to the

¶33

judgment rendered in the case of Urmila Kumari vs. the State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024(1) BLJ 361 , paragraphs 9 and 10 whereof are reproduced as under :-

¶34

“9. Another aspect of the matter is that the post of Anganbari Sevika is neither a post having security of tenure nor a civil post, hence it is sufficient that after due notice to the petitioner

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.3549 of 2020(2) dt.11-01-2024 5/7

¶36

and hearing her, an order is passed, whereafter adequate opportunity is granted by the appellate authority and in case the incumbent is still aggrieved, she may approach the learned Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In this connection, it would be apt to refer to a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Seema Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2015) SCC Online Pat 7267, paragraphs nos. 9 to 11 whereof, are reproduced herein below:-

¶37

“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 show-cause 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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

“10. It would also be gainful to refer to yet another judgment rendered by the

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.3549 of 2020(2) dt.11-01-2024 6/7

¶42

learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 20, paragraphs no. 4 and 5 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

¶43

¶44

“5. The appeal is dismissed.”

¶45

Upon going through the aforesaid judgments,

¶46

this Court fully agrees with the observations mentioned above that the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post in the Government service, and as such the private respondents cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality, as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court also agrees with this view that the aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court for damages.

¶47

Patna High Court CWJC No.3549 of 2020(2) dt.11-01-2024 7/7

¶48

In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the present petition and accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

¶49

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶50

sunnykr/-

¶51

Farzana Khatun v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farzana Khatun v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Wahid Sah @ Wahid Shah Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shobha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Rabindra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar