Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 782 (PAT)

Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh v. State of Bihar

2023-07-19

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

body2023
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.8.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur at Ara, whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner as Aanganbari Sevika has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 29.03.2014, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, is that she was selected and appointed as Anganbari Sevika at Anganwari Centre, Lauhar Centre, Code No. 106, Block- Barahara and was working to the satisfaction of all concern, however, suddenly, vide letter dated 30.07.2012, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that upon inspection having been held on 28.6.2012, gross irregularities were found at the centre in question with regard to non-distribution of meals / Take Home Ration (THR), registers being not maintained, social audit being not undertaken, cleanliness being not kept and the presence of the number of children being zero, whereafter the petitioner had filed her show cause reply on 11.08.2012, stating therein that adequate number of children were present at the center in question and on account of the period in question being a marriage season, the children were busy in listening to music being played in the marriage ceremonies, hence, less number of children had come on the said day, on which inspection was conducted at the center in question. Thereafter, the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur had passed the impugned order dated 14.08.2012, cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika, which was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, however, the appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 46 of 2012-13 has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.3.2014, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, relevant portion whereof is being reproduced herein below: – 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit, filed in the present case that the order of cancellation of the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika is just and proper as also in accordance with law and all reasonable opportunities of hearing were granted to the petitioner, prior to passing of the impugned orders, as aforesaid. It is submitted that on 28.06.2012, the State Level Enquiry Team had inspected the center in question and had found that not even a single child was present there, which has also been admitted by the petitioner in her explanation dated 11.08.2012, apart from other irregularities being found at the center in question with regard to non-distribution of meals/Take Home Ration (THR), registers being not maintained, social audit being not undertaken and cleanliness being not kept at the center in question, thus, there is no infirmity in the order of cancellation of the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika dated 14.08.2012. Similarly, the appellate order dated 29.03.2014 also suffers from no illegality or infirmity and the same has also been passed after observing the principles of natural justice. Thus, it is submitted that present petition is fit to be dismissed, being devoid of any merit. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment, rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 833 (Sajjan Devi vs. State of Bihar), paragraphs no. 11 to 16 whereof are reproduced hereinbelow: – “11. The first question to be considered is as to whether the engagement of Anganbari Sewika is an engagement on a post in the Government service. If their engagements are on the posts in the Government service and they have been appointed following a procedure, in that case their engagements cannot be cancelled on the ground of misconduct without holding a departmental enquiry as provided under the Rules. If in case, they are not holding a post in the Government service and their engagements are on the basis of contract of a service under a Scheme, then their services can be terminated in terms of the agreement after following a procedure consistent with the requirement of principle of natural justice. 12. The Scheme has been made to provide help to the poor and downtrodden persons covered by the Scheme as stated above. Engagement is made only by holding an interview and no payment of salary is being made nor the appointment is being made against any post in the Government service. Honorarium is paid for performing the duties for a particular period. Engagement is made only by holding an interview and no payment of salary is being made nor the appointment is being made against any post in the Government service. Honorarium is paid for performing the duties for a particular period. In case, their services are not found satisfactory, they can be removed from the post of Anganbari Sewika. Term of appointment clearly shows that they are not engaged in Government service nor are they holding any post in the Government Service, having umbrella of protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In case, it is found that they are not performing duties, for which they were engaged, then in terms of the engagement letter they can be removed. They cannot claim initiation of a regular departmental enquiry prior to their disengagement. 13. Thus, the post of Anganbari Sewika is not a post in the Government service and as such the private respondents cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 14. It appears from the record that inspections were held several times and the private respondents were found absent from their duties. It was also found that while on duty, they did not discharge their duties, for which they were engaged and, thereafter, show-cause notices were served upon them and they did not file any show-cause and, thereafter, their engagements were cancelled. 15. Requirement of principle of natural justice has been complied with and as they are not in Government service, they cannot claim a regular proceeding prior to disengagement, or removal by treating the aforesaid act as misconduct. Even alternatively it is assumed that they were on temporary employment in the Government service then also it is found that the authorities after having taken into consideration their past conduct as a motive and after giving an opportunity of hearing to them have disengaged them and as such they cannot claim any infirmity in their disengagement on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 16. Thus, the orders dated 13.2.1989 and 18.2.1989 passed by the authorities cancelling the engagement of the private respondents as Anganbari Sewika, who had filed C.W.J.C. No. 290 of 1991 challenging their cancellation of engagement as Anganbari Sewika are held to be valid orders and they do not suffer from any irregularity and, accordingly, C.W.J.C. No. 290 of 1991 filed by the private respondents is dismissed.” 5. This Court would also refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681 (State of Karnataka and others vs. Ameerbi and Others), wherein it has been held that the post of Anganwadi workers are not statutory post and they have been created in terms of the Scheme as also the Anganwadi workers are not holders of civil post since they do not carry on any function of the State as they do not hold post under a statute, their posts are not created, recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case, hence, the State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality, as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. This Court also deems it fit and proper to refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434, paragraphs no. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced herein below: – “7. Having considered the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The charges against the appellant were very clear as would be apparent from the show cause dated 22.02.2012, which was issued in light of the findings in the enquiry report as well as the relevant documents/registers which were required to be maintained at the Centre. Reply given by the appellant, copy of which has been brought on record, does not indicate any justification and rather it has been stated that on 24.09.2011 at the time of Inspection, the children were still coming and on 07.10.2011, she herself had gone to call the children and during that time the inspection was held. It was further stated by the appellant that on 30.09.2011 she had become ill due to being drenched by rain. We find that such explanation is vague and evasive and does not inspire confidence. The spirit and object of running Anganbari Centers cannot be over-emphasized and the purpose is to ensure the welfare of children from the lowermost and deprived strata of society. Any lapse in execution of the said scheme has to be taken very seriously. Closure of even one day entails the beneficiaries going without their meals, which cannot be overlooked. The spirit and object of running Anganbari Centers cannot be over-emphasized and the purpose is to ensure the welfare of children from the lowermost and deprived strata of society. Any lapse in execution of the said scheme has to be taken very seriously. Closure of even one day entails the beneficiaries going without their meals, which cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the authorities cancelling her selection as well as the procedure adopted by them prior to passing such order. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.” 7. 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 vs. 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.” 8. Again, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.01.2023 in C.W.J.C. no. 16533 of 2013 (Neema Prasad @ Smt. Neema Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Others), paragraph no. 2 whereof is reproduced herein below: – “2. The petitioner assails the order of the District Magistrate rejecting the appeal of the petitioner with regard to the non-appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker. The post of Anganwadi Worker is not a cadre post and the same is governed by guidelines issued in that respect. It is not a post under the State services and a writ petition therefore would not be maintainable with regard to the same. The post of Anganwadi Worker is not a cadre post and the same is governed by guidelines issued in that respect. It is not a post under the State services and a writ petition therefore would not be maintainable with regard to the same. The appeal being heard by the District Magistrate is also under the guidelines issued for the said purpose. Keeping in view thereto, no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction.” 9. Now coming back to the present case, this Court finds that upon an inspection, having been conducted on 28.06.2012, gross irregularities were found at the centre in question and the petitioner was found to have engaged in gross misconduct, inasmuch as neither any child was present at the centre in question nor meals were being distributed properly nor Take Home Ration (THR) was being distributed nor the registers were being maintained nor cleanness was found at the centre in question nor social audit had been undertaken, whereupon a show cause notice dated 30.07.2012 was issued to the petitioner by the District Programme officer, Bhojpur, to which the petitioner had submitted her reply dated 11.08.2012 (Annexure- 5 to the present petition), virtually admitting her guilt, however, pleading lame excuses, whereupon the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur, by an order dated 14.08.2012, had cancelled the selection of the petitioner as an Anganbari Sevika. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 46 of 2012-13, however, the same has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.03.2014, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, which is a just, legal, reasoned and a speaking order, hence, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Moreover, this Court finds that the requirement of principles of natural justice has been complied with and the impugned orders have been passed, after granting due opportunity to the petitioner to present her case, hence, no infirmity can be found in the impugned orders, thus, I do not find any illegality either in the order 14.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur or in the order dated 29.3.2014, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 46 of 2012-13. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.