Case Background
The case arose from a dispute over the continuation of a woman working as Anganwari Sewika at Bageshwari Sheikh Tola, Centre No. 182, in District Araria, Bihar.
Her selection as Anganwari Sewika had been made by the Aam Sabha on 24.04.1990.
Many years later, a complaint was made against her. On that basis, the District Programme Officer (DPO), Araria issued an order dated 17.04.2015 cancelling her selection as Anganwari Sewika for the centre in question.
Acting on the DPO’s order, the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Jokihat, Araria issued a communication dated 07.07.2015. By this communication, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of the Anganwari Sewika job to her successor.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the communication dated 07.07.2015 and, in effect, the cancellation of her selection.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad, heard senior counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel.
The key factual basis for cancellation of the petitioner’s selection was her age at the time of selection. The DPO’s order recorded that on 24.04.1990, when she was selected by the Aam Sabha, the petitioner was only 12 years, 10 months and 21 days old.
On this basis, the authorities held that she was underage for appointment, making her selection illegal from the very beginning.
The petitioner’s counsel did not dispute the recorded date of birth. He accepted that her date of birth was 25.05.1977, which made her less than 13 years old on the date of selection.
However, he argued that the social conditions in 1990 were different. According to him, at that time it was difficult to find women willing to work as Anganwari Sewika for a very small honorarium of Rs. 100 per month.
He submitted that even though her age was known, the Aam Sabha consciously selected her, and she served continuously for many years.
The main plank of the petitioner’s argument was her length of service. By the time of cancellation, she was close to completing 25 years of service as Anganwari Sewika.
This 25-year experience would make her eligible to be considered for appointment as lady supervisor against the 25% promotional quota reserved for Anganwari workers.
The petitioner’s side alleged that the timing of cancellation was mala fide. They pointed out that the order cancelling her selection was issued just about seven days before she was to complete 25 years of experience.
They further submitted that the complaint leading to cancellation came from an agnate (male relative) of the petitioner’s husband, who was allegedly motivated by family feud. On this basis, they contended that the action of the authorities was unfair and arbitrary.
Legally, the petitioner argued that after such a long period of service, she could not be removed only on the ground that she had been underage at the time of original selection. She relied heavily on two earlier judgments of the Patna High Court.
First, she cited the judgment in Ful Kumari @ Ful Kumari Devi vs. The State of Bihar, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 3211 of 2011, decided on 10.05.2012.
Second, she cited Sunita Kumari vs. The State of Bihar, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 13952 of 2011, decided on 01.12.2011.
In these cases, persons selected as Anganwari Sewika below the legal age for employment were facing deprivation of the fruits of their employment.
The petitioner submitted that the Patna High Court, in those matters, had protected the petitioners from arbitrary action, especially because they had not obtained employment by any misrepresentation or fraud.
She argued that, on the same analogy, the respondent authorities in her case should be estopped from depriving her of the benefits of long service and that she should be reinstated as Anganwari Sewika.
The State, through its counsel, opposed the writ petition.
The State’s counsel stressed that, at the time of initial selection, the petitioner was admittedly about 12 years and 11 months old. Therefore, she was still a “child”.
He submitted that this created a legal bar against her employment, as reflected in the provisions of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and other similar laws.
According to the State, an appointment made in violation of such a basic prohibition cannot be treated as valid.
The State further argued that the earlier judgments cited by the petitioner were distinguishable. In the cases of Ful Kumari and Sunita Kumari, the Court had considered only whether the petitioners could use their past experience as Anganwari Sewika for eligibility to be considered as lady supervisors under the 25% promotional quota.
In those matters, the Court had not ordered reinstatement on the Anganwari post. It had merely directed that the experience already gained should be counted.
Here, by contrast, the petitioner was seeking reinstatement to a post that she had occupied as a child of less than 13 years of age.
The State argued that such a selection could not be described as “legal” by any stretch of imagination. Since the relief sought in this case was different and broader than in the cited cases, the petitioner could not rely on those precedents to obtain reinstatement.
After considering the rival submissions, the Patna High Court examined whether it could exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant reinstatement.
The Court accepted that the petitioner’s initial selection was illegal because she was still a child, less than 13 years of age, at the time.
The Court held that the authorities’ earlier failure to prevent such an appointment could not be used to justify continuation of an illegal selection.
It observed that a mistake by the authorities in appointing a child cannot create a legal right in favour of that person to continue in service.
The Court further held that the long duration of service, by itself, could not convert an illegal appointment into a legal one. The mere passage of time does not cure an original illegality.
Therefore, the petitioner could not seek quashing of the CDPO’s communication dated 07.07.2015 directing her to hand over charge, nor could she claim reinstatement as Anganwari Sewika.
The Court emphasised that a writ Court under Article 226 cannot be used to perpetuate or revive an illegality.
Restoring the petitioner to a post obtained through an illegal selection would have exactly that effect.
In support of this principle, the Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments.
It referred to Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of A.P., reported in AIR 1996 SC 828, Mohd. Sawalker vs. III ADJ, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 40, and Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 16.
These decisions reinforce the idea that Courts should not grant relief that results in the restoration or continuation of an illegal act.
On this reasoning, the Court refused to interfere with the communication dated 07.07.2015 or to direct reinstatement.
However, the Court did not ignore the guidance from its earlier decisions in Ful Kumari and Sunita Kumari.
Looking at the relief granted in those cases, the Court held that the petitioner in the present case would also be entitled to claim the benefit of her past experience as Anganwari Sewika.
Specifically, her experience could be counted for the limited purpose of considering her claim for appointment as lady supervisor against the 25% promotional quota, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, while the writ petition was dismissed and reinstatement denied, the door was kept open for the petitioner to use her service experience in future selection processes for the promotional post.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for Anganwadi workers and for those involved in recruitment to such posts in Bihar.
First, it makes clear that if someone was appointed as a child, that appointment is illegal from the start, even if the person works for many years.
The Patna High Court held that such an illegal appointment cannot be protected or revived through a writ petition. Courts will not order reinstatement to a post that was obtained in violation of basic laws, including child labour prohibitions.
Second, the judgment shows that the Court can still recognise the hardship of long service. Even though reinstatement was refused, the petitioner’s experience as Anganwari Sewika was allowed to be counted for consideration for promotion to lady supervisor under the 25% quota.
This balances two concerns: protecting the rule of law against child labour and, at the same time, not completely ignoring the work actually done over many years.
For other Anganwadi workers in Bihar, the message is that eligibility conditions at the time of selection, especially age, are very important and cannot be ignored later. However, where the person has worked honestly without fraud, courts may still allow past experience to be used for limited purposes, such as eligibility for higher posts.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can a person whose selection as Anganwari Sewika was made when she was less than 13 years old seek reinstatement through a writ petition after many years of service?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the initial selection was illegal due to her being a child, and Article 226 cannot be used to revive or perpetuate such an illegality. Reinstatement was therefore refused.
Issue: Despite the illegal initial selection, can the petitioner’s past service as Anganwari Sewika be counted for eligibility to be considered for promotion as lady supervisor under the 25% quota?
Answer: Yes. Following earlier decisions, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of her experience for consideration for appointment as lady supervisor against the 25% promotional quota, in accordance with law.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Ful Kumari @ Ful Kumari Devi vs. The State of Bihar, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 3211 of 2011, judgment dated 10.05.2012 (Patna High Court).
- Sunita Kumari vs. The State of Bihar, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 13952 of 2011, judgment dated 01.12.2011 (Patna High Court).
- Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 828 (Supreme Court of India).
- Mohd. Sawalker vs. III ADJ, (1988) 1 SCC 40 (Supreme Court of India).
- Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 16 (Supreme Court of India).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18372 of 2015
Case Title: Imrana Tarannum @ Bibi Imrana Tarannum vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 17.04.2019
Citation: 2024 (1) PLJR 709
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate; Mr. Umesh Kumar Roy, Advocate.
- For the State: Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP 14.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (service-related dispute concerning cancellation of selection as Anganwari Sewika and claim for reinstatement and consequential benefits).
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
