Gita Devi vs State Of Bihar

In the instant LPA appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.09.2017 passed in CWJC No. 03 of 2016 and connected matters. In CWJC No. 03 of 2016 and connected matters, relief(s) sought by the respective petitioners is as follows (for the purpose of this order, we are extracting only relief sought by Smt. Phul Kumari Devi in CWJC No. 142 of 2013):-

“(i) For Issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions for quashing the Order dated 16.06.2012 passed by respondent no. 5 in Misc. Anganwari Case No. 17/ DM/ 2011. Memo No. 61 in the light of Order dated 15.04.2010 passed by respondent no. 4 in Anganwari Case No. 28/2009 whereby and where under the selection of petition on the post of Anganwari Sevika at Angawari Centre No. 105 has been cancelled and the respondent no. 10 i.e. Vimal Devi to started her home at Anganwari Centre No. 105;

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on her selected Anganwari Centre No. 105 because on two occasions the District Magistrate Arwal i.e. Respondent No. 5 by his Order dated 15.09.2008 and 28.07.2009 has found the selection of petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika is valid;

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions to the respondents to not take any coercive action against the petitioner because petitioner is still working on her respective post;

(iv) To grant any other relief/ reliefs to petitioners under the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law.”

On 22.12.2022, the following order was passed:-

“ Heard matter at length.

Respondents were selected and appointed to the post of Anganwari Sevika. Their selection was cancelled on 27.07.2007 by the District Magistrate while remanding the matter to the selecting and appointing authority to proceed afresh selection. First selection appointees who are aggrieved by the District Magistrate order dated 27.07.2007 invoke remedy before this Court in filing CWJC No. 9774 of 2007 and connected matters. This court disposed of aforementioned CWJC on 04.02.2008 while remanding the matter to the District Magistrate to re-consider grievance of the first selection appointee-respondents. District Magistrate upheld the order of appointment of respondents on 15.09.2008.

In the meanwhile, selecting and appointing authority proceeded to comply the order of District Magistrate dated 27.07.2007 in undertaking fresh selection. Fresh selection process was completed and second selection appointees were appointed. Second selection appointees filed CWJC before this Court in questioning District Magistrate order dated 15.09.2008. This Court remanded the matter to Divisional Commissioner on 29.06.2009 without cancellation of District Magistrate order dated 15.09.2008 in respect of upholding the order of appointment issued to the first selection-appointees. Matter was remanded to Divisional Commissioner. Divisional Commissioner in turn remanded to the District Magistrate on 15.04.2010. District Magistrate order dated 16.06.2012 was subject matter of CWJC No. 23616 of 2012 in other words petitioners in CWJC No. 23616 of 2012 did not invoke appeal remedy before Divisional Commissioner.

In this backdrop, number of CWJCs were clubbed together and decided on 14.09.2017 while passing order in favour of first selection-appointees. Hence, the second selection-appointees have preferred the present LPAs. We have noticed that 15.09.2008, District Magistrate order insofar as upholding the selection and appointment of first selected appointees has not been disturbed till date by any of the authorities and so also, by this Court in earlier CWJC No. 7094 of 2009 decided on 29.06.2009.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants seeks further time to address argument.

Relist this matter on 23.01.2023.”

Today, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the factual aspect of the matter only difference in submission to the previous date and today, are that 257 of Anganwari Sevikas’ vacancies were available. On a particular date, 194 Anganwari Sevikas were recruited, thereafter instead of recruiting 63 Anganwari Sevikas, 72 Anganwari Sevikas were recruited, in other words, 09 Anganwari Sevikas were recruited in excess. It was a subject matter before the District Magistrate, Commissioner and again before this Court. As long as, first selection appointees appointment’s order is not set aside by competent forum, the appellants have no statutory or legal right. At this stage, it is to be noted that first selection appointees and their appointments were subject matter of litigation before the District Magistrate, Commissioner and before this Court. Except District Magistrate setting aside the first selection appointment and thereafter it was restored by the next higher authority and it was subject matter of litigation before this Court, in which, this Court has only remanded the matter, without setting aside the order of appointment of first selection. In the light of these facts and circumstances the appellants have not made out a case.

Accordingly, the L.P.As stand dismissed.