Radha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18604 of 2015 ====================================================== Radha Kumari wife of Janesh Kumar, resident of village- Loharwa Bigha, P.s. Hilsa, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna 3.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda 4.

The District Programme Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 5.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, Naladan 6.

The Child Development Project Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Prasad, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Prasoon Sinha- GA 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 30-01-2023

1. In this writ petition grievance raised is relating to appointment of Anganwadi Worker.

2. In CWJC No. 21963 of 2014 decided on 12.12.2022 (Reena Kumari Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,) this Court has held that the post of Anganwadi Worker does not fall within the purview of State or Subordinate Services. The post of Anganwadi Worker is under a scheme introduced by Govt. of India and respective State Govts. and regulated by guidelines which are non-statutory and therefore not enforceable in law. The appointment is on honorarium basis and no statutory procedure has been laid down.

3. Of course, under the guidelines, grievance against

Patna High Court CWJC No.18604 of 2015 dt.30-01-2023 2/2 appointment of Anganwadi Worker can be raised before the Collector of concerned District with a further revision to the Commissioner.

4. Even the orders passed by the Collector or the Commissioner would not be a subject matter of judicial review as the power being exercised by them relating to a dispute of Anganwadi Worker is under guidelines and they do not act as a statutory authority while deciding such dispute. In view thereof, the writ petition would not be maintainable even against the orders of the Collector or the Commissioner.

5. Leaving it open to the respective writ petition to avail any of the aforesaid remedies, if they have not so availed, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

7. If an appeal/revision is filed, the same shall be decided expeditiously within a period of six months and the question of limitation will not arise.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Suraj/- Item No. 75 AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date