Patna High Court

Tabassum PravinversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed; the orders of the Collector‑cum‑District Magistrate and the District Programme Officer stand affirmed.

Summary

Petitioner Tabassum Pravin filed a writ petition seeking to quash a 04‑Nov‑2024 order of the Collector‑cum‑District Magistrate and a 16‑Jul‑2022 order of the District Programme Officer, and to be reinstated to her post. The petitioner argued that the orders were illegal, contending that she was shown in two services with differing dates of birth but had used only one date, and therefore no illegality existed. The State argued that the District Programme Officer had made a categorical finding after due consideration and the appellate authority had affirmed it. The Court observed that the age difference between the alleged mother and her son was only 8 years 8 months 11 days, an impossibility, and concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the Collector‑cum‑District Magistrate dated 04‑Nov‑2024 is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Whether the order of the District Programme Officer dated 16‑Jul‑2022 is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Whether the age discrepancy between the alleged mother and child renders the orders illegal.

Subjects

writ petition
quashing order
reinstatement
age discrepancy
administrative law
service law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7614 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Tabassum Pravin wife of Md. Kaisar Ali, resident of village Simra, keshopur,

                 P.S.- Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur.


                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar through the Principal secretary, Social Welfare
                 department, Bihar, Patna.
           2.    The Director, Department of Integrated Child Development, Bihar, Patna.
           3.    The secretary Department of Integrated Child Development, Bihar, Patna.
           4.    The Collector cum District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
           5.    The District program officer, Department of Integrated Child Development,
                 Muzaffarpur.
           6.    The District Welfare officer, Muzaffarpur.
           7.    The Child development project officer, Sakra, Muzaffarpur.
           8.    The Supervisor, Child development project officer, Sakra, Muzaffarpur
           9.    Sabra Khatoon wife of Ahmad Hussain resident of village -Keshopur, ward
                 no.- 12, village Keshopur, P.S.- Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr.Yugal Kishore, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :        Mr.Government Pleader (19)
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                                 ORAL ORDER


3   06-04-2026                   Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

                   learned counsel appearing for the State.

                                 2. The present writ petition has been filed for

                   quashing the order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure-5 to the writ

                   petition) passed by respondent no. 4, namely, the Collector-cum-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7614 of 2025(3) dt.06-04-2026
                                            2/3




          District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, as well as the order dated

          16.07.2022 (Annexure P-4 to the writ petition) passed by

          respondent no. 5 in Case No. 59 of 2021. The petitioner has also

          prayed for reinstatement to her post.

                      3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          impugned order passed by the Collector is wholly illegal and not

          in accordance with law. It is further submitted that although the

          petitioner is shown to be in two different services with two

          different dates of birth, she has used only one date of birth, and

          therefore, no illegality can be attributed to her.

                      4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State

          submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. It is

          contended that the District Programme Officer has recorded a

          categorical finding after due consideration of the materials on

          record, and the appellate authority, upon proper appreciation of

          the same, has affirmed the said order finding no infirmity

          therein.

                      5. Upon perusal of the order passed by the District

          Programme Officer as well as the District Magistrate, it is

          evident that the difference between the age of the alleged

          mother and son is only 8 years, 8 months, and 11 days, which is

          an impossibility.
            Patna High Court CWJC No.7614 of 2025(3) dt.06-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                                  6. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings, this

                      Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition.

                                  7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.



                                                 (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…