Patna High Court
Reetu Kumari @ Ritu DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the petitioner must first file a complaint with the District Programme Officer before seeking relief in court.
Summary
Reetu Kumari filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of Pinki Kumari's appointment as Anganwadi Sevika in Parasiyankala village, alleging the appointment was illegal and fraudulent, and also requested her own appointment and publication of a merit list. The State argued that the petition was premature, contending that the petitioner must first lodge a complaint with the District Programme Officer (ICDS) before approaching the court, as mandated by the Anganwadi Sevika and Sahayika Margdarshika. The petitioner claimed she had already approached the DPO, but no action was taken. The Court held that the procedural requirement had not been satisfied and directed the petitioner to file a fresh complaint with the DPO within 30 days, after which the DPO should issue summons and pass a reasoned order within 90 days. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can directly approach the High Court for removal of the Anganwadi Sevika without first filing a complaint before the District Programme Officer as required by the Anganwadi Sevika and Sahayika Margdarshika.
Subjects
- Anganwadi Sevika
- illegal appointment
- writ petition
- procedural requirement
- District Programme Officer
- ICDS
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7387 of 2025
======================================================
Reetu Kumari @ Ritu Devi Wife of Harendar Sah Resident of Village-
Parasiyan Kala, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director Integerated Child Development Scheme, Indira Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas.
4. The Child Development Project Officer, Bikramganj, District- Rohtas.
5. The District Programme Officer (ICDS), Rohtas at Sasaram.
6. Female Supervisor, x
7. Pinki Kumari, Daughter Dawarika Sah, Wife of Dhanjee Sah Resident of
Village- Parsiyakala, P.O.- Semari, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the array of parties, the concerned private respondent has been
correctly shown as respondent No. 7, however, in the prayer
portion, relief has inadvertently been sought against respondent
No. 6. Learned Counsel submits that this is an inadvertent
mistake in the prayer portion. Therefore, he seeks permission to
correct the same in course of the day.
3. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7387 of 2025(2) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
4. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) To issuance of an appropriate
writ / Direction or order for quashing the
appointment of private respondent no.7
Pinki Kumari who has been illegally and
fraduently appointed by the illegal
connievence of respondent Authorities
without any valid and proper documents on
the post of Angan Bari Sevika in the
Panchayat village Parasiyankala ward no.,3
District Rohtas.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ / Direction or order for Appointment of
petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika in
Panchayt village Parasiyankala ward no. 3
code no. 124 District Rohtas after cancelling
the appointment of respondent no. 7
(iii) Also for the publication of
merit list of candidates selected for Sevika
by which a proper applicant of said
panchayat should be appointed.
(iv) Also for the any other proper
order / orders writ / writs as the petitioner is
entitled as per the law.
5. Learned counsel for the State raised preliminary
objection and submits that the relief sought by the petitioner for
removal of Respondent No. 7 cannot be entertained, as it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.7387 of 2025(2) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
governed by the Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika Margdarshika.
Counsel further submits that, for the said relief, the petitioner
ought to have filed a complaint before the District Programme
Officer and only thereafter he has to move before this Hon’ble
Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed an application before the D.P.O., Rohtas,
Sasaram, but the said D.P.O. has taken no action and has not
entertained her petition.
7. In light of the submissions made above, the present
writ petition stands disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a
fresh complaint before the District Programme Officer (ICDS),
Rohtas at Sasaram (respondent No. 5). within 30 days along
with a copy of this order, and upon receipt of the same,
respondent No. 5 shall issue summons to all concerned and,
upon verification, shall pass a reasoned and speaking order
within 90 days thereafter.
8. It is made clear that the period of 90 days shall be
counted from the date of appearance of all concerned persons.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…