Disposed¶28

Mamta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Jan 2026CWJC/12495/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWJC 12495/2013; Anganbari Sevika; Aangan Bari Sevika; Hajipur; Vaishali; Tirhut Division Commissioner; Service Appeal 297 of 2012; Annexure-8; technical rejection for want of security of tenure; Article 311 Constitution of India; maintainability of Anganbari Sevika disputes on merits; Julee Kumari (2023) 2 PLJR 253; set aside; remand for reasoned order on merits; hearing all concerned parties; 90-day timeline; de-tagging from batch cases; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order (Annexure-8) set aside; matter remanded to the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur for a fresh reasoned order on merits after hearing all concerned parties, final order within 90 days of appearance of the concerned parties; writ petition disposed of. ¶28

Mamta Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012, refusing to entertain the appeal solely because the post of Anganbari Sevika carries no security of tenure or Article 311 protection, could stand in view of the changed legal position, and whether the matter should be remanded for a reasoned decision on merits.

¶23

Court's answer

Annexure-8, the order of the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012, was not passed on merits but on a technical ground.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In view of the changed position of law, the Court set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012.

¶27

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur with a direction to pass a reasoned order on merits after hearing all concerned parties, including the petitioner and the private respondent No. 6, upon their appearance.ratio¶27
The final order on merits is to be passed within a period of 90 days from the date of appearance of the concerned parties.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J.), oral judgment dated 21-01-2026, CWJC No. 12495 of 2013: Anganbari Sevika selection dispute (Ward No. 32, Hajipur, Vaishali). The petitioner's appeal in Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012 before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur (Annexure-8) had been rejected on the sole technical ground that the post carries no security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, with liberty to seek damages before the Civil Court. Finding the order non-merits-based and acting on the changed legal position reflected in Julee Kumari v. State of Bihar, (2023) 2 PLJR 253, the Court set aside Annexure-8, remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a reasoned order on merits after hearing all concerned parties (petitioner and private respondent No. 6 included, upon appearance), and required the final order within 90 days of the parties' appearance; writ petition disposed of. The matter had been de-tagged from a batch of eight allied CWJC cases at counsel's request.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12495 of 2013

¶2

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

¶3

Mamta Kumari W/O Shri Nawal Prasad Singh Resident Of Chauhatta, Chhipi Tola Ward No. 32, Hajipur, District Vaishali

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

The Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur

¶8

The District Magistrate/Collector, Vaishali At Hajipur

¶9

The District Programme Officer, Vaishali At Hajipur

¶10

Ward Councillor-Cum-President, Aangan Bari Sevika Selection Committee, Ward No. 32, Hajipur Municip

¶11

Smt. Rita Devi W/O Late Shyam Nandan Singh Resident Of Chhipi Tola, Hajipur

¶12

C.D.P.O., Hazipur, Vaishali

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, Advocate ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date : 21-01-2026

¶18

In today’s cause list, the present matter has been listed along with CWJC No. 12384 of 2024, CWJC No. 18365 of 2014, CWJC No. 1004 of 2023, CWJC No. 2927 of 2023, CWJC No. 5349 of 2023, CWJC No. 6323 of 2023, CWJC No. 12517 of 2024 and CWJC No. 17312 of 2024. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues involved in the present case are different from those involved in the batch cases and, therefore, prays that the present matter be heard separately.

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.12495 of 2013 dt.21-01-2026 2/3

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents also agrees with the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

In view of the above, the present matter is being heard separately after de-tagging it from the aforesaid batch cases.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Stated and learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012 is purely technical in nature, whereby the appeal was not entertained solely on the ground that the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The Commissioner, while passing the said order, granted liberty to the petitioner that, if she still felt aggrieved, she might approach the Civil Court for damages.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the legal position has undergone a change, and vide judgment

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.12495 of 2013 dt.21-01-2026 3/3

¶26

passed in the case of Julee Kumari v. The State of Bihar, reported in (2023) 2 PLJR 253, it has been held that disputes relating to Anganbari Sevika are now maintainable on merits.

¶27

It is, thus, crystal clear that Annexure-8, being the order passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012, was not passed on merits but on a technical ground. In view of the changed position of law, this Court hereby sets aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 297 of 2012 and remands the matter back to the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur with a direction to pass a reasoned order on merits after hearing all concerned parties, including the petitioner and the private respondent No. 6, upon their appearance. The final order on merits shall be passed within a period of 90 days from the date of appearance of the concerned parties.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

¶29

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶30

Ashwini/-

¶31

AFR/NAFR	NA
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	27/01/2026
Transmission Date	NA

Mamta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Seema Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Arvind Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Asgari Khatun Vs The State of Bihar

Purushottam Kumar Jha Vs State of Bihar