IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4443 of 2008 MIRA DEVI @ MIRA KUMARI, WIFE OF PRADEEP KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LASARI, P.S. CHAND, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABUA). ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHAND, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 6. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, CHAND, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 7. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 8. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BHABUA, KAIMUR. --- RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.4468 of 2008 URMILA KUMARI, WIFE OF AKHILESHWAR RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDOSH, P.S. CHAND, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABUA). ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHAND, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 6. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, CHAND, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 7. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 8. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BHABUA, KAIMUR. --- RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.4521 of 2008 SHEELA SINGH, WIFE OF ARUN KUMAR KHARWAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHANI, P.S. CHAND, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABUA). ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHAND, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 6. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, CHAND, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 7. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 8. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BHABUA, KAIMUR. --- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 19.4.2011 These three writ applications arise out of a common order passed by the District 2 Programme Officer, Kaimur (Bhabua). By the said order, the District Programme Officer has terminated the service of these petitioners, who were working as Anganwari Sevikas at different centres. The said order of dismissal has been passed on the basis of Annexure-2, the report of the Block Development Officer which indicates, that when he visited the three Centers, he either found that the Centers were closed or that the take home meals were not distributed to the women and children of the Centers. The only point that arises for consideration is whether such an order could have been passed without following the guidelines of the year 2006. Clause 10 of the guidelines provides that before passing an order of dismissal, the person concerned ought to be given a show cause. It has been submitted on behalf of the counsel for the State that the status of an Anganwari Sevika is not that of a permanent employee. It is an engagement for the purposes of uplifting the backward and needy women and children in the society by providing them meals. It is also 3 submitted that a specific notification was issued in the newspaper vide a decision taken by the Director of the Welfare Department wherein it has been mentioned, that if it is found that the Anganwari Sevikas are not performing their duties and are not supplying the take home ration to the women and children, they would not be entitled to the benefit of being issued a show-cause notice before their termination. The aforesaid notification is certainly a warning to the Anganwari Sevikas and information to the recipients of the benefits granted by the Centre that they would have a right to protest and complain if, the Anganwari Sevikas do not perform their duties. The allegation of not supplying the ‘take home meal’ is indeed serious. However, the delinquent would have a right to be noticed and heard in the matter. The order impugned has also to be quashed on the ground that the final authority to pass the order is the District Magistrate and not the District Programme Officer. In the result, I quash the order as 4 contained in Annexure-1 with a direction that the petitioner should appear with a copy of the order of this Court within six weeks before the District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua) who will call upon the Block Development Officer and after hearing the parties, pass an appropriate order within two months. It has been pointed out that in Chandosh Centre, PS Chand, District Kaimur where Urmila Kumari was already working, fresh appointment has been made of an Anganwari Sevika to perform the work. It is submitted that the appointment has been made subject to the result of these writ applications. I clarify here, that the petitioners would not be entitled to be reinstated until final decision in this matter. In case the District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua)/Commissioner reaches the conclusion that the petitioners had not performed their duties, it would be open to the District Magistrate to either confirm the new appointment made, if it has been made in accordance with the guidelines by holding Aam Sabha etc. or make fresh 5 appointments. However, if the appointment has been made as a stop gap arrangement, then appointments should be made in accordance with the fresh guide lines as issued in 2010. I may also point out that the petitioners are not government employees in the true meaning of the term. They are merely engaged to perform the work of an Anganwari Sevika under a scheme formulated by the Government, as such the proceeding that would be conducted by the District Magistrate, would be for the purpose of coming to a finding regarding the allegations made against the three petitioners. These writ applications are allowed in the terms mentioned aforesaid. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)