2025:JHHC:12328-DB LPA No. 442 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 442 of 2022 Salima Kumari, aged about 32 years, wife of Shri Fooldeo Oraon, resident of Village- Navdiha, P.O. & P.S.- Bhandra, District- Lohardaga. … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, having office at P.O. & P.S.- Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga. 3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S.- Lohardaga, District- Loharadaga. 4. District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S.- Lohardaga, District-Loharadaga. 5. Child Development Project Officer, Bhandra, P.O. & P.S.- Bhandra, District-Lohardaga. 6. Circle Officer, Bhandra, P.O. & P.S.- Bhandra, District- Lohardaga. … … Respondents 7. Lalita Oraon, wife of Kailash Bhagat, resident of Village- Naudiha, P.O. & P.S.- Bhandra, District- Lohardaga. … … Writ petitioner/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.III Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 25.03.2025 Pronounced on:25/04/2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by a third party challenging the judgment dt. 04.05.2022 in W.P.(S) No. 3019 of 2020. 2. The said writ petition had been filed by the 7th respondent against respondents 1 to 6 challenging a letter dt. 29.02.2020 issued by the 5th respondent terminating her services as an Anganvari Sevika and seeking her reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits. 2025:JHHC:12328-DB LPA No. 442 of 2022 3. The learned Single Judge had set aside the said termination order dt. 29.02.2020 and directed the reinstatement of the 7th respondent into service with 50% of back wages within eight weeks from his order. The learned Single Judge had held that the termination of the service of the 7th respondent was for a misconduct which was not proved in any departmental proceeding and that the respondents 1 to 6 had already predetermined to remove her from service on the basis of an inspection done behind her back and that they had acted in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The appellant had been appointed on 05.07.2017 in the place of the 7th respondent after the 7th respondent was initially terminated from the post of Anganvari Sevika on 15.05.2016. 5. After the 7th respondent succeeded in the W.P. (S) No. 3019 of 2020 on 04.05.2022 and this Court directed her reinstatement into service, the services of the appellant were terminated by an order dt. 02.08.2022 to make way for the 7th respondent to join service. 6. Therefore, the appellant had filed this appeal by seeking leave to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. Such leave was granted on 05.08.2024 in I.A. No. 2362 of 2024 and the appellant was permitted to maintain this L.P.A. 8. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the writ petition filed by the 7th respondent in this Court was not maintainable and no relief ought to have been granted by this Court to the 7th respondent in the writ petition. 9. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant also that since the appellant had not been impleaded in the writ petition, and so on the ground of non-joinder of the appellant as a party in the writ petition, relief should have been denied to the 7th respondent in the writ petition. 2025:JHHC:12328-DB LPA No. 442 of 2022 10. He further contended that since the 7th respondent was not holding a ‘civil post’, the writ petition is not maintainable. He relied on State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Ameerbi and others1. 11. He also relied on the judgment of the Patna High Court in Nitu Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar2, wherein a view was expressed that the post of Anganvari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under article 311 of the Constitution of India and the only remedy open to an Anganwari worker, whose services are terminated, is to approach the civil court for damages. 12. As regards the first plea raised by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not impleaded in the writ petition by the 7th respondent who had filed the said writ petition, we may point out that there was no such plea about engagement of the appellant in the place of the 7th respondent in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition by the respondents 1 to 6. Therefore, the 7th respondent was not aware of the engagement of the appellant in her place after the termination of her services by respondents 1 to 6 on 15.05.2016. 13. In any event, since the appellant had been granted leave to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, the case of the appellant has to be considered in the light of the contentions raised by the appellant. 14. The case of Ameerbi and others (1 supra) relied upon by the appellant was a case where Anganwari workers had approached the Administrative Tribunal in the State of Karnataka constituted under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Tribunal in the said case has held that the application of the Anganwari workers was 1 (2007) 11 SCC 680 2 2011 SCC OnLine Pat 904 2025:JHHC:12328-DB LPA No. 442 of 2022 maintainable although they were paid only honorarium because they hold a civil post. The State of Karnataka then approached the Supreme Court challenging the said judgment of the Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court. It was, thus, not a case arising out of a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and it only decides the question as to whether Anganwari workers can approach the Administrative Tribunal for relief in case of the termination of the their services. 15. We may point out that the cases relating to Anganwari workers in writ jurisdiction had been entertained by this Court as well as by other High Courts, because the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very wide and is not just confined to persons holding civil posts as in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 16. In Diptimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa3, the Supreme Court dealt with a case of recruitment of Anganwari workers and did not say in the said case that the writ petition filed before the High Court of Orissa was not maintainable. 17. Even in the decision of the Supreme Court in Nisha Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh4, the Supreme Court set aside an order of termination of an Anganwari worker on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and sent it back to the Divisional Commissioner to take a fresh decision overruling the judgment of the High Court of the Himachal Pradesh which had taken a different view in a writ petition filed by her challenging her termination. 18. We do not agree with the view taken in the decision of the High Court of Patna in Nitu Kumari (3 supra) that a writ petition challenging 3(2008) 10 SCC 687 4 (2014) 16 SCC 392 2025:JHHC:12328-DB LPA No. 442 of 2022 an order of dismissal from service by an Anganwari worker is not maintainable and that her remedy is only to approach the civil court for damages. The said Division Bench appears to have overlooked the wide powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and in our opinion, incorrectly decided that Anganwari workers cannot file a writ petition challenging their termination from service. We, therefore, reject the contentions of the counsel for the appellant that the 7th respondent could not have filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging her termination from service and that the said writ petition filed by her was undoubtedly maintainable. 19. Since the appointment of the appellant was in the post which was vacant on the termination of the service of the 7th respondent by the respondents 1 to 6, once such termination of service of the 7th respondent has been set aside by this Court and the 7th respondent has been directed to be reinstated, the only option left to the respondents 1 to 6 was to terminate the service of the appellant so that the 7th respondent can be accommodated in that vacancy. 20. Therefore, there is no illegality in the termination of the service of the appellant by the respondents 1 to 6 after the writ petition filed by the 7th respondent had been allowed. 21. We, therefore, find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the 7th respondent, within four weeks by the appellant. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) N.F.R. MM/-