Patna High Court
Shakuntala Devi @ Shakuntala Kumari vs The Principle Secretary on 19 December, 2024
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19190 of 2024
======================================================
Shakuntala Devi @ Shakuntala Kumari, W/o- Sudharshan Paswan, R/o- Vill.-
Mathar, P.S- Mufasil Khagaria, Block and Dist.-Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Principle Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Munger Commissionery, Munger.
3. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Khagaria, Dist.-Khagaria.
4. The District Program Officer, Khagaria, Dist.-Khagaria.
5. The C.D.P.O. (Child Development Project Officer), Khagaria.
6. Manisha Devi, W/o -Dhiraj Paswan, R/o- Village- Mathar, P.S.- Mufasil
Rahimpur, Dist.- Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.P. Gupta, GP- 10
Mr. Virendra Kuar, AC to GP- 10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-12-2024
Heard Mr. Arun Kumar No.1, larned Advocate for
the petitioner and learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated
29.09.2019
passed in Anganbari Case No. 47 of 2018 by the
District Programme Officer, Khagaria, contained in Annexure-2
to the writ petition, as also the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in
Misc. (Anganbari) Case No. 16 of 2019-20 by the learned
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khagaria, contained in
Annexure-3, whereby the Miscellaneous Case (Appeal)
preferred by the petitioner against the original order also stood
Patna High Court CWJC No.19190 of 2024 dt.19-12-2024
2/6
dismissed. It is also contended that against the order of the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khagaria, the petitioner has
preferred Revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger
Division, Munger vide Anganbari Sevika Appeal No. 15 of
2023, however, the same came to be rejected on the ground of
having no jurisdiction in terms of Guidelines, 2016.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while
assailing the impugned orders vehemently contended that
despite the petitioner being eligible candidate for the post of
Anganbari Sevika, she has not been selected and ignoring all the
illegalities mentioned in para. 4 of the writ petition, the private
respondent no.6 has been duly appointed. It is further contended
that the private respondent no.6 is the relative of Ward Member
of Ward no.7 and her date of birth was wrongly filled up and
was not even tallied with the Adhar Card. There are various
other discrepancies in the selection process apart from the
infirmities in the application form; which was not even duly
filled up by respondent no.6. The petitioner raised all the
infirmities before the District Programme Officer, Khagaria in
Anganbari Case No. 47 of 2018, but it came to be dismissed by
disregarding all the points raised by the petitioner. On being
aggrieved, the petitioner approached before the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khagaria in Misc. (Anganbari) Case
No. 16 of 2019-20, but to no respite and, in fact, he validate the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19190 of 2024 dt.19-12-2024
3/6
illegality, is the contention of learned Advocate.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, however,
fairly contended that though under the Guidelines, 2016, there is
no provision of revision before the concerned Divisional
Commissioner, but on account of wrong advise the petitioner
approached before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger
Division and accordingly, the same also stood dismissed.
Referring to the impugned order, Mr. Kumar, learned Advocate
for the petitioner tried to persuade this Court that the respondent
authorities failed to consider the infirmities, as pointed out by
the petitioner while rejecting the case of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
contended that after going through the impugned order, it would
be manifest that all the relevant points raised by the petitioner
has been separately dealt with and on being found no infirmities
in the selection of private respondent no.6, the claim of the
petitioner has been turned down. It is further contended that the
respondent no.6 has secured more marks than the petitioner and
this fact cannot be denied, as is evident from the impugned
order.
6. This Court has heard the learned Advocate for
the respective parties and also perused the materials available on
record.
7. Suffice it to observe that in terms of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19190 of 2024 dt.19-12-2024
4/6
prescription as provided under the Guidelines, 2016, the
petitioner has availed all the opportunities to challenge the
selection, as provided therein. This Court also finds that both the
orders passed by the District Programme Officer, Khagaria and
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khagaria are well reasoned
and speaking orders and the infirmities pointed out by the
petitioner has been dealt with. Moreover, there is a disputed
question of facts, the determination of which demands elaborate
examination of evidences and while exercising the writ
jurisdiction, this Court ordinarily restrain to enter into such
dispute.
8. It is also worth noticing that time without
number this Court has held 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 Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction. It would be apt to recapitulate the relevant
paragraphs of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of
Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh vs. The State of Bihar and
Ors., [2024(1) BLJ 178], wherein the learned Court having
taken note of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. Ameerbi and
Patna High Court CWJC No.19190 of 2024 dt.19-12-2024
5/6
Others, [(2007) 11 SCC 681] held as follows:
“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. Ms Indira Jaising, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,
on the other hand, would submit that the
question as to whether anganwadi workers hold
civil post or not must be considered having
regard to the tests laid down by this Court in
determination of the relationship of employer
and employee.
7. The learned counsel would urge
that casual railway employees, part-time
employees having been held by this Court to be
holders of civil post, there is no reason as to why
the respondents would be treated differently. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.19190 of 2024 dt.19-12-2024
6/6
was submitted that anganwadi workers must not
be paid wages less than the minimum wages
fixed by the State as the same would amount to
beggary. Emoluments of an employee, the
learned counsel would urge, must be fair and
reasonable.
9. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position and
taking note of the disputed question of facts, this Court does not
find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the
present writ petition stands dismissed.
10. However, suffice it to observe that the petitioner
is at liberty to approach before the Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction, if so desire to establish the right for which the writ
claimed for.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.12.2024 Transmission Date NA