Patna High Court - Orders
Mamta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 31 July, 2014
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3690 of 2014
======================================================
Mamta Kumari Wife of Binay Kumar Thakur, Resident of Village Bihra,
Sah Tola, Police Station - Bihra, District - Saharsa
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa
3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa
4. The District Program Officer, Saharsa
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Sattar Kataiya, District -
Saharsa
6. Anita Devi Wife Of Basant Kumar Resident Of Village - Bihra, Police
Station - Bihra, District - Saharsa
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shrawan Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravi Verma, AC to GP-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-07-2014Heard the parties.
In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dispute relates with respect to selection on the post of Anganwari Sewika for Anganwari centre in question situate at Sahu Tola, Ward No. 9, village Bihra in the district of Saharsa.
As per the case of the petitioner, in the Aam Sabha held on 02.04.2007, she was selected on the post of Anganwari Sewika for Anganwari centre in question. Admittedly, the respondent no. 6- Anita Devi, being aggrieved by the aforesaid selection, filed an application before the respondent District Programme Officer, Saharsa raising a grievance with respect to the selection of the writ petitioner contrary to the provisions of the Government guidelines dated 03.10.2006. The respondent District Programme Officer, Saharsa, after considering the entire materials and relevant Patna High Court CWJC No.3690 of 2014 (2) dt.31-07-2014 2/5 records, came to the findings that selection of the writ petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sewika, was contrary to the aforesaid Government guidelines and, therefore, her selection was set at naught.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent District Programme Officer, Saharsa, filed an appeal before the respondent- District Collector, Saharsa, who, finally by his order dated 28.06.2008, dismissed the appeal and directed to initiate a fresh selection process for filling up the post of Anganwari Sewika. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a further appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa, who affirmed the order passed by the respondent- District Collector, Saharsa.
The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the respondent District Programme Officer, Saharsa, the respondent- District Collector, Saharsa and the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa, approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6043 of 2010, which was finally disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 09.12.2010. While disposing of the writ petition, the matter was remitted back to the respondent- District Collector, Saharsa with a direction to examine the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
In view of the aforesaid remand order passed by this Court, the respondent- District Collector, Saharsa heard the parties, examined all the materials and finally by his order dated 14.05.2012 came to a finding that selection of the writ petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sewika for Anganwari centre in question was contrary to the Government guidelines dated Patna High Court CWJC No.3690 of 2014 (2) dt.31-07-2014 3/5 03.10.2006, as she was not belonging to the majority class of beneficiaries viz Scheduled caste/scheduled tribes of the Anganwadi centre in question. As per the findings of the District Collector, Saharsa, the petitioner could not have legally selected for the Anganwari Centre in question. Therefore, he directed for initiation of a fresh selection process for filling up the post of Anganwari Sewika.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order moved before the respondent Divisional Commissioner. The respondent no. 6 also filed an appeal before the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa. By the order dated 10.06.2013, appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the aforesaid order dated 10.06. 2013 was modified in the appeal filed by the respondent no. 6 by the impugned order dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure-6). The respondent Divisional Commissioner has been pleased to affirm the order passed by the respondent- District Collector, Saharsa, after recalling his previous order dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure-5). He also directed for initiation of fresh selection process for filling up the post of Anganwari Sewika for Anganwari centre in question.
It is not in dispute that the selections of Anganwari Sewika/ Sahayika are not made as per any particular statute. Selections of Anganwari Sewika/ Sahayika are governed by the guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time. As per findings recorded by the respondent District Programme Officer, Saharsa, the respondent- District Collector, Saharsa as also the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa, the selection of the writ petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sewika Patna High Court CWJC No.3690 of 2014 (2) dt.31-07-2014 4/5 was contrary to the Government guidelines dated 03.10.2006, which was prevalent at the relevant time and, therefore, all the three authorities came to the identical conclusion that fresh selection process is required to be initiated for filling up the post of Anganwari Sewika for Anganwari centre in question.
It is also not in dispute that Anganwari Sewika/ Sahayika do not get any prescribed pay scale. They are not appointed rather they are selected for discharging their service on an honorarium basis. Apparently, it is not a government service. Selections are made under a particular scheme.
It would further be relevant to mention here that the guidelines dated 03.10.2006 has undergone a radical change in the year 2011 and it was further modified in the year 2013. In view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three authorities that selection of the writ petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sewika for the Anganwari Centre in question was contrary to the Government Circulars and orders/ guidelines, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. As per the direction of the respondent- District Collector, Saharsa and the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa, a fresh selection process has to be initiated. However, it is directed that a fresh selection process shall take place as per the existing guidelines. If the petitioner and/or the respondent no. 6 fulfil the conditions for such selection, then they shall be allowed to participate in the aforesaid selection process. If both of them have become overage, then the authorities concerned shall consider for relaxation of their age, as this matter remained pending since the year 2007 before one authority or the other, and could not be finally concluded.
For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands Patna High Court CWJC No.3690 of 2014 (2) dt.31-07-2014 5/5 dismissed, but with the observations and directions made above.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/-
U