Sangita Kumari @ Sangeeta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7922 of 2025 ====================================================== Sangita Kumari @ Sangeeta Kumari Wife of Ranvir Kumar, Resident of VillAshanagar, Mandanlal Gupta Niwas, Sangat Par, P.O.- Sohsarai, P.S.- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director, ICDS Directorate, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda.

5.

The District Program Officer, Nalanda.

6.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel (7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for grant of the following Reliefs:- "I. For quashing the Order dated 16.01.25 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna in ICDS Case No. 4/2023 whereby and where under the Learned Divisional Commissioner, Patna has confirmed the order of termination from service passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda contained in Memo No. 2144 dated

2/5 07.12.22.

II. For quashing the order contained in Memo No. 2144 dated 07.12.22 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda whereby the services of the petitioner discharging her duties as Female Supervisor for long 11 years has been terminated and the contract of employment has been cancelled without application of any judicious mind and in a mechanical manner.

III. For a direction upon the concerned authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service along with full salary and all consequential benefits arising therefrom.

IV. For the grant of any other relief for which the petitioner is found entitle to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, and the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, are in complete violation of law, and that the petitioner's contract has been cancelled unnecessarily, and it requires interference. Counsel submits that there are affidavits filed by different anganwadi sevikas according to character of the petitioner, which was completely been ignored.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

3/5 submits that the petitioner is a contractual employee and not the regular government servant. As such, the petitioner has no protection under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or under service law of the land. Counsel submits that the services of the petitioner is being guided by a Resolution No. 1846 dated 10.06.2010 issued by the Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar (annexed as Annexure-P/1). Counsel submits that as per Clause-xiv of the said resolution, the contract of the petitioner may be terminated upon fulfilling the conditions. Counsel submits that here in the present case, from the order passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda contained in Memo No. 2144 dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure-P/8), and subsequently, the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patna dated 16.01.2025 in ICDS-4-2023 (Sangita Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar) (Annexure-P/9), it become crystal clear that the termination order has been passed in true compliance of the Clause-xiv of the said resolution No. 1846 dated 10.06.2010.

5. After hearing the parties and upon going through the documents, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is not protected under the Constitution of India or under service law. However, protection is available to the petitioner under Resolution No. 1846 dated 10.06.2010, whose clause-xiv reads

4/5 as under:- "(xiv) अनुबंधकीसमापपप(Termination)- क) इसÁdkj कापनयोजन, संपवदाअवपधसमापपप केपूवरउभयपकोदाराएकमाहकीपूवरसूचना देकरसमापपपकयाजासकेगा। ख) मपहलापयरवेपककादाराअपनेकपरवयोके lar®"kÁn पनवरहननहींपकये जाने, उनके दारा अपनयपमपपाबरपेजाने, अनापधकृपअनुपपससप रहने, अपरापधकघटनामेशापमलहोनेअसवा एकरारनामेकी'krksZ काउललंघनकरनेकीपससपपमे उनसे सपषटीकरण पूछकर संबंपधप पजला पदापधकारीvuqcaèk eqDr करनेकाआदेशपापरप करेगे।इनके आदेशके पवरदअपीलसंबंपधप ÁeaMyh;

आयुकपकेसमकएकमाहकेअनदरकी जासकेगी।ÁeaMyh;

आयुकपकेआदेशकेपवरद कोईअपीलनहींकीजासकेगी। ग) उपरोकपकंपडका(ख) मेउपललपखपआरोपोके आधारपरसंबंपधपlk{;®a से संपुषटहोकर सपषटीकरण ÁkIr करने के पशचाप संबंपधप ÁeaMyh;

आयुकपमपहलापयरवेपककाकाअनुबंध समापपकरनेकाआदेशपापरपकरेगे। घ) उपरोकपÁkfèkdkj®a के अपपपरकपउपरोकप कंपडका(ख) मेउललेपखपपबनदुओंपरजांचोपरानप मपहला पयरवेपकका को सेवा मुकप करने का "

अपधकारसरकारमेभीसुरपकपरहेगा।

6. Here in the present case, from the order passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, it transpires that show cause

5/5 has been served upon the petitioner and it has been confessed by her that in the video, it is the petitioner who was present and therefore, in this regard, a criminal case has also been lodged under sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner.

7. This Court is of the view that the impugned orders have been passed completely in accordance with terms of the contract of Clause-xiv of the Resolution No. 1846 dated 10.06.2010 which deals about termination. Hence, there is no need of any interference in this matter.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U