Renu Kumari @ Renu Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12127 of 2021 ====================================================== Renu Kumari @ Renu Devi Wife of Om Prakash Manjhi, resident of VillageDumari, Ward No. 6, Panchayat-Dumari, P.S.-Khaira, District-Saran, Chhapara.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Saran, Chhapara.

4.

The District Program Officer, Saran, Chhapara. 5.

The Block Development Officer, Saran, Chhapara. 6.

The Child Development Officer, Nagara, Saran at Chhapara. 7.

Mamta Devi, Wife of Mukesh Manjhi, resident of Village-Dumari, P.S.- Khaira, District-Saran Chhapra.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Md. Raisul Haque, SC-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24-11-2023 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(i). A writ preferably in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ writs, order /orders direction/ directions to commanding the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as the post of Aganwari Sewika at Dumari Panchayat ward no. 6 under Nagara Block, District- Saran.

(ii) To respondent is without calling the Aam Shabha he appointed the private Respondent No. 7

2/4 (Mamta Kumari)."

2.

At this juncture, this Court would refer to a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Seema Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in (2015) SCC Online Pat 7267, paragraphs no. 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 showcause 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

3/4 incorrect/forged.

11. Thus for the reasons indicated above, this application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed."

3.

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."

4.

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the

4/4 learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted. 5.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.11.2023 Transmission Date NA