Basanti Pal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 11528 of 2014 =========================================================== Basanti Pal, W/o Radha Kant Pal, an Assistant Anganbari Kendra, Chandpur, Kendra Code No. 266, Block Kadwa, District Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Regional Development Officer, Purnia

3. The District Programme Officer, Katihar

4. The Development Programme Officer Kadwa Block, District Katihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Raghunand, GA XI with Mr Sanjay Kr Tiwari, AC to GA XI =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-01-2018 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondentState. 2 The petitioner is aggrieved by her removal from the post of Anganbari Sahayika in the Anganbari Centre No 266, Chandpur, Block - Kadwa in the district of Katihar. 3 The records reveal that an inspection of the Centre was made on 19.01.2012 at 12.05 noon. The petitioner was not found there. The Centre was closed. She has been removed because the Centre was supposed to be operative between 10 am to 2 pm. However, the Centre was closed and the petitioner was absent. She has tried to explain her absence stating that the Sevika had gone to

Patna High Court CWJC No.11528 of 2014 dt.25-01-2018 2/2 attend her ailing mother-in-law. In the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that she was prevented from coming to the Centre due to natural reasons being the cold weather. Substantially, the absence of the petitioner from the Centre is admitted.

4 In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the order passed by the District Programme Officer dated 29.02.2012 removing the petitioner as also the order passed by the Regional Development Officer, Purnia (Respondent No 2) on the petitioner's Appeal No 34 of 2013, which are reasoned and considered orders, after affording the petitioner her due opportunity of hearing in accordance with the Anganbari Paryavechika/Sevika/Sahayika Niyukti Margdarshika, cannot be interfered with.

5 The writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 30.01.2018 Transmission Date NA