1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul dated 09.11.2019 in Anganwari
Appeal Case No.11/2019 as well as the order dated 07.12.2018, passed by the C.D.P.O., Triveniganj, Supaul issued vide memo No. 867.
3. The submission of the petitioner is that the said dispute has come before this Court earlier in CWJC No. 16430 of 2016 (Usha Raman vs. the State
of Bihar and Ors.). Thereafter, the matter was remitted back, but the Collector at the time of hearing the appeal, has left to consider that the earlier
center has been bifurcated into three centers and, accordingly, the situation in the light of Aanganbari rules has been completely changed, but this
aspect has not been considered by the Collector at all.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the consistent finding of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as well as the Hon’ble Patna High Court that the post of Anganwadi Sevika is not a post in the government service nor this is a post under
the State services, as such, the present petitioner may not claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing the argument of both parties, it is necessary for this Court to refer to the recent judgement rendered in the case of Parvati Devi @
Parvati Singh vs. the State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024(1) BLJ 178, paragraphs 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 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.â€
7. It would be apt to refer to yet another judgment 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 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.â€
Similarly, this Court further refers to the 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 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.â€
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 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.â€
6. Upon going through the aforesaid judgments, this Court fully agrees with the observations mentioned above that the post of Anganwadi Sevika is
not a post in the Government service, and as such the private respondents cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 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. This
Court also agrees with this view that the aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court for damages.
7. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the present petition. But taking into consideration this aspect that the present dispute has earlier come to
this Hon’ble Court, this Court only directs the petitioner to raise all the points, as raised in the present writ petition, before the District Magistrate,
Supaul whereupon the District Magistrate, Supaul after hearing the petitioner /aggrieved person shall pass necessary order in this matter afresh within
90 days. It is made clear that this liberty has been granted to the petitioner only due to the reason that this matter was earlier came before this
Hon’ble Court and on the directions of the Hon’ble Court, this matter was sent before the District Magistrate. The observation part of this
order shall not be treated as precedent.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
