Nasima Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5681 of 2017

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

Nasima Khatoon W/o Md. Mozaffar Saiyed Ansari, Resident of Village P.O.Madhopur Digharua, P.S.-Tajpur, District-Samastipur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Samastipur

¶9

The District Programme Officer, Samastipur.

¶10

The Child Development Project Officer, Tajpur Samastipur

¶11

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj,Madhopur Digharua.

¶12

The Block Development Officer, Tajpur, Samastipur.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumod Kumar Shrivastaw, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

Date : 12-02-2026

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

The petitioner has filed the instant application for

¶22

the following relief (s) :-

¶23

“a) For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 30.01.2015, 02.02.2015 and 25.02.2015 by which the Respondents ordered to the petitioner to change the place of centre of Anganbari from the present place i.e.(Md. Lal Ka Darwaja) to Dalan of Phul babu within 24 hours as contained in Annexure -5 series and 7 respectively which are arbitrary and illegal.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.5681 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026 2/4

¶25

(b) For quashing/setting aside the order dated 05.05.2015 passed by District Programme Officer by which the petitioner was terminated from service as contained in Annexure- 10 to this petition.

¶26

(c) For setting aside the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by District Magistrate Samastipur by which the Appeal of the petitioner against the order passed by District Programme Officer Samastipur as contained in Annexure- 10 to this petition was dismissed as contained in Annexure-11 to this petition.

¶27

(d) For a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back salary from the date of her termination including all consequential benefits.

¶28

(e) For issuance of any other writ/ writs direction/directions; order/ orders to which the petitioner is entitled in the ends of justice.”

¶29

The relevant facts in brief are that the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika at the Anganwadi Centre, Code no.30 in Madhopur, Digharua Panchayat was set aside vide order contained in memo no.411 dated 5.5.2015 of the District Programme Officer, Samastipur. The appeal preferred by the petitioner vide Anganwadi Appeal Case no.76 of 2015 has been rejected by order dated 17.2.2017 (Annexure-11) passed by the Collector, Samastipur.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the petition, the instant

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.5681 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026 3/4

¶32

application is being disposed of on a limited point.

¶33

The petitioner in paragraph no.27 of the writ application has specifically contended that neither any show cause was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing given by the District Programme Officer before passing the order of termination, impugned herein.

¶34

This Court having gone through the order impugned finds no mention of any notice/show cause having been issued to the petitioner nor any mention of the response having been filed by the petitioner.

¶35

Further in response to the statement made in paragraph no.27 of the writ application, stated herein above, the same has been replied to by the respondents in paragraph no.21 of the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6, which is to the effect that so far as the averment made by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 26 to 36 of the writ application is concerned, the same is the version of the petitioner and onus lies upon the petitioner to prove the same. Once again there is no statement contradicting the stand of the petitioner in paragraph no.27 of the writ application that no show cause was served on him and no opportunity of hearing was given by the District Programme Officer before passing the order impugned.

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.5681 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026 4/4

¶37

In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for interference in the order impugned.

¶38

The order of termination dated 5.5.2015 passed by the District Programme Officer, Samastipur as also order dated 17.2.2017 rejecting the Anganwadi Appeal Case no.76 of 2015 by the Collector, Samastipur, both being not sustainable, are set aside.

¶39