Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 299 (PAT)

Savita @ Savitri Devi v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-12

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order issued vide memo no. 167 dated 22.7.2002 as contained in Annexure 8 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been terminated from the posts of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika respectively. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners since were found eligible for appointment as Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika as they were Bahoo of the village in question where the centre was situated, they were appointed on the posts of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika by virtue of orders as contained in Annexures 2 and 3 in the year 1991 and they served on the posts for about twelve years. All of a sudden the order impugned was issued without disclosing any reason whatsoever for termination of the petitioners. It is further submitted by learned counsel that till date the posts of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika in the centre in question have not been filled up. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5. J.C. to G.P. 4 with reference to the counter affidavit, however, submitted that since the petitioners were not Bahoo of Sakraura village, they were not eligible for such appointments and they were appointed de hors the rules. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika after following the due procedures in the year 1991 and they continued on the posts for about 12 years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are Bahoo of Ramgarh tola of village Sakraura in the district of Nalanda. The only grund which is made out by learned counsel for the State is that the petitioners should be Bahoo of Sakraura village as per rule framed by the State Government. The relevant rules have been brought on record and marked as Annexure 13. From sub clause (iii) and (iv) of Clause 5 of the Rules it appears that Anganbari Sevika or Sahayika must belong to the village in question where centre is situated and in case the centre is situated in a tola of a village, then they must be resident of that very tola. From sub clause (iii) and (iv) of Clause 5 of the Rules it appears that Anganbari Sevika or Sahayika must belong to the village in question where centre is situated and in case the centre is situated in a tola of a village, then they must be resident of that very tola. It further appears that Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika must be Bahoo of village/to/a. This is the admitted position in the case that there is no centre situated in tola Ramgarh rather it is situated in village Sakraura itself. It is also not is dispute that the petitioners are Bahoo of Ramgarh tola. Since there is no center situated in Ramgarh tola and petitioners being Bahoo of Ramgarh tola of village Sakraura in my opinion they were eligible to be appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika. 6. The appointment of the petitioners of the aforesaid posts, therefore cannot be said to be violative of the rules as referred to above. The order impugned, as contained in Annexure 8 is a non speaking order and no reason whatsoever has been assigned. It is not known to the petitioner as to under what circumstances they were removed and now some reasons are being disclosed in the counter affidavit. An order affecting a person must be speaking one so that the aggrieved persons may know reasons for the orders passed against them. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the order impugned as contained in Annexure 8 is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly without jurisdiction. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. Order impugned is set aside and the petitioners are directed to be reinstated on the posts of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika respectively forthwith.