The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the livelihood of the petitioner, an Anganbari Sevika. Relying on precedents, the Court held that such posts are not government services and lack Article 311 protection, rendering the petition not maintainable.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4161 of 2018
======================================================
Arpana Kumari, W/o Sri Saroj Kumar Pandey, resident of Village- Kanar Hariharpur, P.O. Kanar Hariharpur, P.S. Khaira, District- Saran Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tara Nath Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal (SC-3) Mr. Bipin Kumar, (AC to SC-3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
6 08-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4161 of 2018(6) dt.08-01-2024 2/7
Patna High Court CWJC No.4161 of 2018(6) dt.08-01-2024 3/7
Bihar and Ors . reported in 2024(1) BLJ 178 , p aragraphs 5, 6,
7 and 8 whereof are reproduced as under:-
“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.
“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 herein below:-
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4161 of 2018(6) dt.08-01-2024 4/7
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.
“8. For the reasons aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.”
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:-
“4. In our considered view, the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under Article
Patna High Court CWJC No.4161 of 2018(6) dt.08-01-2024 5/7
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.
“5. The appeal is dismissed.”
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 :-
“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 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:-
“9. As noted above, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4161 of 2018(6) dt.08-01-2024 6/7
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.
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.
11. Thus for the reasons indicated above, this application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.”
“10. It would also be gainful to refer to yet another judgment rendered by the 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:-
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4161 of 2018(6) dt.08-01-2024 7/7
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.
“5. The appeal is dismissed.”
Divyansh/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the livelihood of an Anganbari Sevika is maintainable given the nature of the post.
Whether an Anganbari Sevika has protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Usha Raman vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.Referred¶23
Usha Raman vs. the State of Bihar and Ors., CWJC No. 16430 of 2016
State of Karnataka and others v. Ameerbi and OthersRelied on¶29
State of Karnataka and others v. Ameerbi and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 681 · Who else cites this
Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and othersRelied on¶30
Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others, 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434 · Who else cites this
Neetu Kumari v. The State of Bihar and OthersRelied on¶36
Neetu Kumari v. The State of Bihar and Others, 2011 (4) PLJR 20
Urmila Kumari vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.Relied on¶42
Urmila Kumari vs. the State of Bihar and Ors., 2024(1) BLJ 361
Seema Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Relied on¶43
Seema Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2015) SCC Online Pat 7267 · Who else cites this
Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.Relied on¶25
Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh vs. the State of Bihar and Ors., 2024(1) BLJ 178
Arpana Kumari
The State Of Bihar
District Magistrate cum-Collector, Saran Chapra
District Programme Officer I.C.D.S.
Child Development Project Officer, Nagra Block
Circle Officer Nagra Block
DR. ANSHUMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
