Patna High Court
Sangita Kumari @ Sangeeta KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The termination order was valid as it was issued in accordance with the contractual provisions of Clause‑xiv of Resolution No. 1846, and therefore no interference was warranted.
Summary
Sangita Kumari, a contractual Female Supervisor under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme, was terminated from service by an order of the District Magistrate, Nalanda, which was later confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. She filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the termination order, reinstatement with full salary and benefits, alleging violation of law and denial of due process. The State contended that she was a contractual employee not protected by Article 309 or service law, and that the termination was in accordance with Clause‑xiv of Resolution No. 1846 dated 10‑06‑2010, which permits termination upon compliance with its conditions. The Court examined the contractual provisions and the resolution, noting that the termination complied with the stipulated notice and procedural requirements, and also observed a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Concluding that the orders were valid and within the contractual framework, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a contractual employee under the ICDS scheme is protected by Article 309 of the Constitution or service law.
- Whether the termination of the petitioner’s contract complied with Clause‑xiv of Resolution No. 1846 dated 10‑06‑2010.
- Whether the procedural requirements of notice and show‑cause were satisfied in the termination process.
- Whether the writ petition challenging the termination order is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13, 7
Subjects
- contractual employee
- termination
- ICDS
- writ petition
- service law
- Article 309
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- administrative law
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7922 of 2025
======================================================
Sangita Kumari @ Sangeeta Kumari Wife of Ranvir Kumar, Resident of Vill-
Ashanagar, Mandanlal Gupta Niwas, Sangat Par, P.O.- Sohsarai, P.S.-
Sohsarai, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, ICDS Directorate, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Nalanda.
5. The District Program Officer, Nalanda.
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Bind, Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (7)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance
of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for
grant of the following Reliefs:-
“I. For quashing the Order dated 16.01.25
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna
in ICDS Case No. 4/2023 whereby and where
under the Learned Divisional Commissioner,
Patna has confirmed the order of termination
from service passed by the District Magistrate,
Nalanda contained in Memo No. 2144 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7922 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/5
07.12.22.
II. For quashing the order contained in Memo
No. 2144 dated 07.12.22 passed by the District
Magistrate, Nalanda whereby the services of
the petitioner discharging her duties as
Female Supervisor for long 11 years has been
terminated and the contract of employment has
been cancelled without application of any
judicious mind and in a mechanical manner.
III. For a direction upon the concerned
authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service
with continuity of service along with full salary
and all consequential benefits arising
therefrom.
IV. For the grant of any other relief for which
the petitioner is found entitle to in the facts
and circumstances of the present case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
orders passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, and the
Divisional Commissioner, Patna, are in complete violation of
law, and that the petitioner’s contract has been cancelled
unnecessarily, and it requires interference. Counsel submits that
there are affidavits filed by different anganwadi sevikas
according to character of the petitioner, which was completely
been ignored.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7922 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/5
submits that the petitioner is a contractual employee and not the
regular government servant. As such, the petitioner has no
protection under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or
under service law of the land. Counsel submits that the services
of the petitioner is being guided by a Resolution No. 1846 dated
10.06.2010 issued by the Social Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar (annexed as Annexure-P/1). Counsel
submits that as per Clause-xiv of the said resolution, the
contract of the petitioner may be terminated upon fulfilling the
conditions. Counsel submits that here in the present case, from
the order passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda contained
in Memo No. 2144 dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure-P/8), and
subsequently, the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patna
dated 16.01.2025 in ICDS-4-2023 (Sangita Kumari Vs. The
State of Bihar) (Annexure-P/9), it become crystal clear that the
termination order has been passed in true compliance of the
Clause-xiv of the said resolution No. 1846 dated 10.06.2010.
5. After hearing the parties and upon going through
the documents, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is
not protected under the Constitution of India or under service
law. However, protection is available to the petitioner under
Resolution No. 1846 dated 10.06.2010, whose clause-xiv reads
Patna High Court CWJC No.7922 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
4/5
as under:-
“(xiv) अनु बंध की समापपप (Termination)-
क) इस Ádkj का पनयोजन, सं पवदा अवपध समापपप
के पूवर उभय पको दारा एक माह की पूवर सूचना
दे कर समापप पकया जा सकेगा।
ख) मपहला पयरवेपकका दारा अपने कपरवयो के
lar®"kÁn पनवरहन नहीं पकये जाने , उनके दारा
अपनयपमपपा बरपे जाने , अनापधकृप अनु पपससप
रहने , अपरापधक घटना मे शापमल होने असवा
एकरारनामे की 'krksZ का उललं घन करने की पससपप मे
उनसे सपषटीकरण पूछकर सं बंपधप पजला
पदापधकारी vuqcaèk eqDr करने का आदे श पापरप
करे गे । इनके आदे श के पवरद अपील सं बंपधप
ÁeaMyh; आयु कप के समक एक माह के अनदर की
जा सकेगी। ÁeaMyh; आयु कप के आदे श के पवरद
कोई अपील नहीं की जा सकेगी।
ग) उपरोकप कंपडका (ख) मे उपललपखप आरोपो के
आधार पर सं बंपधप lk{;®a से सं पुषट हो कर
सपषटीकरण ÁkIr करने के पशचाप सं बंपधप
ÁeaMyh; आयु कप मपहला पयरवेपकका का अनु बंध
समापप करने का आदे श पापरप करे गे ।
घ) उपरोकप Ákfèkdkj®a के अपपपरकप उपरोकप
कंपडका (ख) मे उलले पखप पबनदुओं पर जांचोपरानप
मपहला पयरवेपकका को से वा मु कप करने का
अपधकार सरकार मे भी सु रपकप रहे गा।”
6. Here in the present case, from the order passed by
the District Magistrate, Nalanda, it transpires that show cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.7922 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
5/5
has been served upon the petitioner and it has been confessed by
her that in the video, it is the petitioner who was present and
therefore, in this regard, a criminal case has also been lodged
under sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
against the petitioner.
7. This Court is of the view that the impugned orders
have been passed completely in accordance with terms of the
contract of Clause-xiv of the Resolution No. 1846 dated
10.06.2010 which deals about termination. Hence, there is no
need of any interference in this matter.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U
Checking your session…