Patna High Court
Ram Dulari DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as the writ petition is not maintainable; selection disputes under the ICDS scheme lie outside writ jurisdiction.
Summary
The appellant, Ram Dulari Devi, challenged the appointment of another Anganwadi Sevika to a post in Ward No. 9, alleging ineligibility and procedural irregularities. She filed a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus to reinstate her, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that such selection matters do not fall within writ jurisdiction. On intra‑court appeal, the High Court examined whether the Single Judge’s order could be interfered with and reiterated that appointments under the Integrated Child Development Services scheme are non‑statutory and governed by executive guidelines, not by enforceable statutory rights. Citing precedents that Anganwadi workers are not civil servants and are outside the ambit of Articles 14, 16 and 311(2), the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Court directing the appellant to pursue alternative administrative remedies.
Issues considered
- Whether the intra‑court appeal can interfere with the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition challenging the Anganwadi Sevika selection.
- Whether the selection of an Anganwadi Sevika is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Subjects
- Anganwadi Sevika
- selection dispute
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Integrated Child Development Services
- non‑statutory appointment
- intra‑court appeal
- eligibility criteria
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.695 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10524 of 2017
======================================================
Ram Dulari Devi, aged about 41 years (Female), wife of Brij Mohan
Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Phulaut, West, Ward No. 9, Post Office-
Phulaut, Block-Chausa, P.S- Chausa, District- Madhepura.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Director, Social Welfare I.C.D.S Directorate, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
4. The District Magistrate, Madhepura, District- Madhepura.
5. The District Program Officer, Madhepura, District- Madhepura.
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Chausa Block Chausa, P.S.-
Chausa, District- Madhepura.
7. L.S. Block Chausa, P.S. Chousa, District- Madhepura.
8. The Ward Member, Ward No. 9, Panchayat Phulaut, West, P.S.- Chausa,
District- Madhepura.
9. Manita Kumari, Anganbari Sevika, Wife of Krishna Kumar Sah, Resident of
Village-Phulaut West Panchayat, P.S- Chausa, District- Madhepura.
10. Nibha Kumari, Wife of Arun Suryabanshi, Resident of Village-Phulaut West,
Ward No. 7, Post Office-Phulaut Block, Chausa, P.S.- Chausa, District-
Madhepura.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Shivnandan Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, G.A.-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
4 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
Patna High Court L.P.A No.695 of 2023(4) dt.09-04-2026
2/9
against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10524 of 2017, whereby
the writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed.
3. The present dispute arises out of the
selection/appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika for Ward
No. 9, Anganwari Centre No. 153, situated at Village Phulout
(West), District Madhepura. The appellant claims to be a
permanent resident of the said ward, belonging to the Extremely
Backward Class, possessing requisite educational qualifications
and higher merit. It is her case that she had the support of the
majority of beneficiaries in the general body meeting dated
23.08.2014 and was the most suitable for the said post.
4. The dispute essentially relates to the selection of
Respondent No. 10, who, according to the appellant, does not
belong to Ward No. 9 and was, therefore, ineligible. It is further
alleged that the selection process suffered from irregularities
and violation of Government guidelines, particularly with
respect to ward-based eligibility and beneficiary support.
Despite this, Respondent No. 10 was selected and appointed,
and the appellant’s candidature was ignored. The petitioner
challenges the said selection as well as the subsequent orders
affirming it, contending that material facts and statutory
Patna High Court L.P.A No.695 of 2023(4) dt.09-04-2026
3/9
requirements were ignored.
5. In the writ petition, the appellant had sought the
following reliefs:
“1. For issuance of Certiorari, setting aside
the Order dated 24.04.2017, passed by the
District Magistrate, Madhepura vide
Anganbari Appeal No. 42 of 2014 affirming
the Order dated 16.12.2014, passed by the
District Programme Officer, Madhepura by
which petitioner’s case has been dismissed.
2. For issuance of Mandamus, directing the
Respondent authority concerned to reinstate
the petitioner on the post of Anganwari
Phulout (West) Ward No. 9 under Gram
Panchayat Phulout Block Chousa in District
Madhepura.”
6. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the
said writ petition, observed as follows:
“In view thereof, the writ petition would not
lie with regard to the selection process of
Anganwadi worker and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
However, while dismissing the writ petition,
it is observed that if the petitioner still feels
aggrieved, she may approach the competent
authority.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.695 of 2023(4) dt.09-04-2026
4/9
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that an appointment
which is illegal and void ab initio cannot be sustained merely on
the ground of continuation. It is further submitted that
Respondent No. 10 was not a resident of Ward No. 9 and thus
did not satisfy the essential eligibility criteria. It is further
submitted that relevant materials, including the voter list and
applicable guidelines, were not properly considered, thereby
vitiating the selection process.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits
that the selection of Respondent No. 10 was made strictly in
accordance with the governing guidelines. It is submitted that
Respondent No. 10 fulfilled all eligibility conditions, including
residence, category requirement, and merit position. The
appellant’s claim was duly considered and rejected by the
District Programme Officer, which decision was affirmed by the
District Magistrate. It is thus submitted that no illegality exists
warranting interference.
9. The limited issue which arises for consideration is
whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, any
interference is warranted in exercise of intra- court appellate
jurisdiction with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Upon consideration of the materials on record and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.695 of 2023(4) dt.09-04-2026
5/9
the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears
that the learned Single Judge has comprehensively examined the
scope of the writ petition and correctly observed that challenges
to the selection of Anganwadi workers ordinarily do not lie
under writ jurisdiction.
11. It is to be noted that engagement/selection to the
post of Anganwadi Sevika is not a statutory appointment under
any service rules, but is part of a welfare scheme framed by the
Government, namely the Integrated Child Development
Services (ICDS). Such engagement is governed by executive
instructions and guidelines, and does not confer any enforceable
statutory right so as to warrant interference under writ
jurisdiction.
12. It is well settled that in matters arising out of
selection under government schemes, particularly where the
engagement is honorary or scheme-based in nature, the scope of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is
extremely limited. In such cases, writ jurisdiction is not
ordinarily invoked to adjudicate disputes relating to comparative
merit, eligibility, or local preference.
13. In State of Karnataka vs. Ameerbi & Ors.,
reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.695 of 2023(4) dt.09-04-2026
6/9
categorically held that Anganwadi workers are engaged under a
welfare scheme, do not hold civil posts, and their engagement is
non-statutory in nature, thereby limiting enforceability of rights
under writ jurisdiction. The relevant part of the said order reads
as follows:
“8. The posts of Anganwadi workers are not
statutory posts. They have been created in
terms of the scheme. It is one thing to say
that there exists a relationship of employer
and employee by and between the State and
Anganwadi workers but it is another thing to
say that they are holders of civil post. We are
not oblivious of the fact that their presence in
their respective villages is extremely
important. They are supposed to make
significant contribution to the society. They,
we understand, are required to carry a large
number of activities, primarily amongst them
being the welfare of the children.
..
11. Anganwadi workers, however, do not
carry on any function of the State. They do
not hold post under a statute. Their posts are
not created. Recruitment rules ordinarily
applicable to the employees of the State are
not applicable in their case. The State is not
required to comply with the constitutional
scheme of equality as adumbrated under
Patna High Court L.P.A No.695 of 2023(4) dt.09-04-2026
7/9
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India…”
14. Further, in the case of Urmila Kumari vs. the
State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024(1) BLJ 361,
following observations were made:-
“9. Another aspect of the matter is that the
post of Anganbari Sevika is neither a post
having security of tenure nor a civil post,
hence it is sufficient that after due notice to
the petitioner and hearing her, an order is
passed, whereafter adequate opportunity is
granted by the appellate authority and in
case the incumbent is still aggrieved, she
may approach the learned Civil Court of
competent jurisdiction. In this connection, it
would be apt to refer to a judgment rendered
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Seema Kumari vs. The State of Bihar
& Ors., reported in (2015) SCC Online Pat
7267, paragraphs nos. 9 to 11 whereof, are
reproduced herein below:-
“9. As noted above, the Anganbari Sevika is
not a government servant and has no
protection under Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India so as to envisage the
concept of regular departmental proceeding.
The petitioner was given a notice. She was
informed about the allegation against her.
She had filed her show-cause reply which
was considered by the District Programme
officer and when the order went against her,
she had also been given adequate
opportunity by the appellate authority who,
in fact, had himself got the matter verified
by referring the matter to the Bihar Sanskrit
Patna High Court L.P.A No.695 of 2023(4) dt.09-04-2026
8/9
Board.
10. In that view of the matter, this Court
would not find any error in the impugned
order of termination of the services of the
petitioner when it is found that the petitioner
had got appointment by producing a
document in support of qualification which
was found to be incorrect/forged.
11. Thus for the reasons indicated above,
this application must fail and is, accordingly,
dismissed.”
15. In view of the aforesaid settled principles, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition itself
was not maintainable, as the dispute pertains to engagement
under a government scheme and does not involve violation of
any statutory provision or enforceable legal right.
16. This Court, therefore, finds that the learned Single
Judge has correctly appreciated the legal position and has
rightly declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, leaving it open for
the appellant to avail alternative remedies, if so advised.
17. Since the writ petition itself was not maintainable,
this Court does not deem it appropriate to enter into the merits
of the rival claims with respect to eligibility, residence, or
alleged irregularities in the selection process.
18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, no
ground for interference is made out in exercise of intra-court
appellate jurisdiction.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.695 of 2023(4) dt.09-04-2026
9/9
19. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
20. It is, however, clarified that the appellant, if so
advised, may avail the liberty granted by the learned Single
Judge to approach the competent authority/forum in accordance
with law.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Shailendra Singh, J)
U.K./-A.F.R.
U
Checking your session…