Dismissed¶31

Maya Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Jul 2025CWJC/1445/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Anganbari Sevika termination; Anganbari Centre Bajaraha Ward No.9; Clause (6) Anganbari Guidelines 2016; father-in-law Government servant salary bar; Panchnama Batwara; separation/partition 2007; 2018 amendment inapplicable to 2017 selection; District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.) Kaimur Appeal Case No.70/2018; Collector-cum-DM Kaimur Anganbari Appeal No.16/2019; Anganbari Revision Case No.6/2020 fresh selection; panel expired; Kaimur (Bhabhua); ICDS Bihar; writ petition dismissed with liberty to join fresh selection. Relevant to queries on Anganbari/ICDS recruitment disqualifications, family-employment bars, and applicability of amended guidelines to earlier selections.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner left at liberty to participate in the fresh selection process. ¶31

Maya Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner left at liberty to participate in the fresh selection process.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's termination as Anganbari Sevika on the ground that her father-in-law is a Government servant having salary of more than twenty thousand was sustainable notwithstanding her claimed separation from, and partition with, the father-in-law since 2007 supported by a notarised Panchnama Batwara. +2 more

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of Clause (6) of Anganbari Guidelines, 2016, the Court found substance in the respondents' submissions that the disqualification is absolute and unqualified, without any condition; having been amended and modified in the year 2018, it would not be applicable in the present case involving the 2017 selection.

¶30

Key takeaways

Pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate in Anganbari Revision Case No.6/2020, fresh selection is to be carried out, a factor weighed by the Court in assessing the writ petition.ratio¶30
The Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition, which accordingly stands dismissed.ratio¶31
Notwithstanding dismissal, the petitioner shall be at liberty to participate in the fresh selection process.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, CWJC No.1445 of 2021 (Harish Kumar, J., oral order dated 01-07-2025): Maya Kumari, terminated Anganbari Sevika of Anganbari Centre Bajaraha, Ward No.9, Kaimur, challenged (i) the order dated 25.01.2019 of the District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.), Kaimur in Appeal Case No.70/2018 cancelling her services on the ground that her father-in-law is a Government servant having salary of more than twenty thousand, affirmed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur on 12.03.2020 in Anganbari Appeal No.16/2019. Her plea of separation from the father-in-law since 2007, backed by a notarised Panchnama Batwara, did not avail: the Court held the Clause (6) disqualification in the Anganbari Guidelines, 2016, operative at the 2017 selection, to be absolute and unqualified, the 2018 amendment being inapplicable to that selection. With the panel expired and fresh selection directed by the District Magistrate in Anganbari Revision Case No.6/2020, the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner remaining at liberty to participate in the fresh selection.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1445 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Maya Kumari, Wife of Gopal Bind, Resident of Village- Bajaraha, Police Station-Kudra, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur, (Bhabhua).

¶8

The District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.), Kaimur, (Bhabhua).

¶9

The Child Development Programme Officer, Kudra, District-Katihar (Bhabhua).

¶10

Rukamani Kumari, Wife of Sanoj Bind Resident of Village- Bajaraha Ward No. 9, P.O.-Dagari, Police Station- Kaimur, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua), Pin No.821109.

¶11

Shyam Bihari Bind, Son of Late Sagina Bind Resident of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh).

¶12

Bachan Chaturvedi, Son of not known, Notary Public Sub Divisional Court Mohania, P.O. and P.S. Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabua).

¶13

Nagendra Prasad, Son of not known, Advocate Sub Divisional Court, Mohania, P.O. and P.S. Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabua).

¶14

The Secretary, Legal Department, Government of Bihar, Notary Public, Patna.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Choubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-3 Mr. Arjun Prasad, AC to SC-3 For the Respondent : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Adv. ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶17

7 01-07-2025 Heard the parties.

¶18

The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated

¶19

12.03.2020 passed in Anganbari Appeal No.16/2019 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua), whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 25.01.2019 passed in Appeal Case No.70/2018 by the District Programme

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.1445 of 2021(7) dt.01-07-2025 2/4

¶21

Officer (I.C.D.S.) Kaimur, came to be affirmed. The petitioner also aggrieved with the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.), Kaimur (Bhabhua), whereby the petitioner has been terminated from her post of Anganbari Sevika, Anganbari Centre Bajaraha, Ward No.9.

¶22

The petitioner having found herself eligible for appointment to the post of Anganbari Centre, Bajaraha duly participated in the selection process and selected as Anganbari Sevika on 10.10.2017. After having completed training, the petitioner submitted her joining which was duly accepted. While the petitioner was discharging her duty on the post of Anganbari Sevika, in the meanwhile, the respondent no.5 made a complaint before the District Programme Officer, Kaimur, alleging therein that the petitioner’s father-in-law is a Government servant having salary of more than twenty thousand. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner entered her appearance and filed a detailed reply stating therein that both the petitioner and her husband have already separated from the father-in-law long back in the year 2007.

¶23

To support the aforesaid contention, a Panchnama Batwara duly notarised by the Notary was also placed. However, the District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.), Kaimur, Bhabhua allowed the Anganbari Appeal No.70/2018 and directed for cancellation of services of the petitioner on the ground afore-mentioned.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.1445 of 2021(7) dt.01-07-2025 3/4

¶25

Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate in Anganbari Appeal No.16/2019; however, the same also came to be rejected.

¶26

While assailing both the orders, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that both the respondents have failed to consider that the petitioner and her husband had already separated and a partition had taken place long back in the year 2007; the selection process came to be started in the year 2017 and, as such, in no circumstances, the ground taken for cancellation is said to be justified. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the factum of separation was supported by the Lady Supervisor.

¶27

While refuting the contention, learned Advocate for the State and the private respondent have filed separate counter affidavit. Apart from suspecting the genuineness of the Panchnama Batwara, it is further contended that disqualification enumerated in Clause (6) of the Anganbari Guidelines, 2016 is absolute and not a qualified to the extent of jointness with the father-in-law or separation from the father-in-law. Both the counsel further contended that the clarification and the amendment, which took place in the year 2018 cannot apply in the case, where selection process has taken place in the year 2017. Taking this Court to the averments made in the

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.1445 of 2021(7) dt.01-07-2025 4/4

¶29

interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.1 of 2023, it is further contended that now life of the panel has also expired and the District Magistrate, Kaimur, Bhabhua in Anganbari Revision Case No.6/2020 has directed for fresh selection in accordance with law.

¶30

Having considerd the submissions set forth by the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of Clause (6) of Anganbari Guidelines, 2016, this Court, prima facie, finds substance in the submissions by the learned Advocate for the respondents that the disqualification is absolute and unqualified, without any condition; which came to be amended and modified in the year 2018, hence, it would not be applicable in the present case. All the more, pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate, in Anganbari Revision Case No.6/2020, fresh selection is to be carried out.

¶31

In view thereof, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.

¶32

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to participate in the fresh selection process.

¶33

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶34

rohit/-

¶35

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua) in Anganbari Appeal No.16/2019, whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 25.01.2019 passed in Appeal Case No.70/2018 by the District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.) came to be affirmed; the petitioner stood terminated from the post of Anganbari Sevika.¶19
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua) · 12.03.2020
Prior proceeding
Petitioner, found eligible for the post at Anganbari Centre, Bajaraha, participated in the selection process and was selected as Anganbari Sevika on 10.10.2017; after completing training she submitted her joining, which was duly accepted.¶22
Prior proceeding
Respondent no.5 made a complaint before the District Programme Officer, Kaimur alleging that the petitioner's father-in-law is a Government servant having salary of more than twenty thousand.¶22
Prior proceeding
On receipt of notice, the petitioner entered appearance and filed a detailed reply stating that she and her husband had already separated from the father-in-law long back in the year 2007.¶22
Prior proceeding
In support of the contention of separation, a Panchnama Batwara duly notarised by the Notary was placed.¶23
Prior proceeding
By order dated 25.01.2019 passed in Appeal Case No.70/2018, the District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.), Kaimur (Bhabhua) terminated the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sevika, Anganbari Centre Bajaraha, Ward No.9, having allowed the appeal and directed cancellation of her services on the ground that her father-in-law is a Government servant.¶21
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate in Anganbari Appeal No.16/2019; the same came to be rejected (order dated 12.03.2020).¶25
Prior proceeding
Per averments in interlocutory application I.A. No.1 of 2023, the life of the panel had expired and the District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua) in Anganbari Revision Case No.6/2020 had directed fresh selection in accordance with law.¶29

Maya Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bisheshwar Singh, Retired Assistant Electrical Engineer Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd.

Ashok Kumar Rajak Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Baran Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Binod Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Shailendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar