IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6708 of 2008 INDU DEVI, WIFE OF SRI ANIL KUMAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. KHARHATAR CENTRE BRAHMAN TOLA, P.S. SIMARI DISTRICT BUXAR. --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BUXAR. 5. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SIMARI, DISTRICT BUXAR. 6. S.D.O., DUMRAO, BUXAR. 7. D.D.C., BUXAR. 8. B.D.O., SIMARI, BUXAR. 9. THE PRINCIPAL ANGANWARI TRAINING CENTRE, DUMRAON, BUXAR. 10. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KHARHATAR BLOCK SIMARI BUXAR. 11. SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KHARHATAR BLOCK SIMARI, BUXAR. 12. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BUXAR ----- RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. Manish, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.A.G. 12 Mr. Gopal Prasad Gupta, A.C. to A.A.G. 12 ----------- 2 10.5.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure-5, issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar by which the petitioner’s services as an Anganwari Sevika in Brahman Tola Gram Panchayat Raj Kharhatar Block Simari, District Buxar has been terminated, on the ground that her husband is a government employee. An application was filed on behalf of one Bhagwan Ojha who belongs to ‘Jan Jagran Manch’ complaining that the 2 petitioner’s husband is a government employee and, therefore, she is not entitled for the said appointment. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Sevika in the year 2002-03. The said appointment was covered by the guidelines formulated by the Welfare Department vide letter no. 108 dated 5.3.2002. The guidelines do not provide a bar for appointment of persons whose family is employed in government service and as such the petitioner was duly qualified for appointment on the said post at the relevant time. Subsequently the 2006 guidelines came into existence. Sub clause ‘Anga’ of clause 3 specifically puts a bar in appointment of those persons whose husband and other family members are defined in the said sub clause are employed by the State Government in one or the other capacity. This bar did not exist at the time when the petitioner was appointed and as such the order terminating her services on the grounds mentioned in the order is not justified. In the result, I quash the order dated 17.12.2007, issued vide memo no. 1283, 3 passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar and direct that the petitioner may be reinstated on the post of Anganwari Sevika within a period of three months on receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is thus, allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)