Gunjan Kumari vs State Of Bihar

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 16/3/22 passed by the district magistrate (respondent no. 3) in anganbari sewika/sahavika selection appeal case no. 38/2020// 440/2019 (annex-) by which respondent no. 3 has rejected the appeal file by the petitioner & confirm the order passed by respondent no. 4 and also to quash the order dated 17/12/18 passed vide memo no. 1993 by respondent no. 4. (annex---)by which the respondent no. 4 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for the podt of anganwari sevika on the ground that the mother in law of the petitioner is sarpanch of gram panchayat khudwa & while the passing order the respondents have failed to considered the fact that the petitioner is a widow lady and she is living separately from her mother in law as well as her in laws family members by meats & bound & the respondent wrongly come to conclusion that the petitioner's mother in law is sarpanch of the village & the respondents also failed to consider that respondent no. 7 has less marks than the petitioner & also to directed the respondent no. 3 & 4 to issue appointment latter to the petitioner & to appoint the petitioner in place of respondent no. 7 and/or pass any other order / orders, relief/reliefs, which may deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case."

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 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.

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.

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

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.

The appeal is dismissed.”

Considering the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court, as aforesaid, the 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.

The writ petition stands disposed off as not pressed.