Justice Restored: High Court Intervenes in Anganbari Sevika Appointment Dispute

 

This case from the Patna High Court, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11547 of 2018, concerns a protracted legal battle over the appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika. The judgment, delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman on August 27, 2024, ultimately set aside a District Magistrate's order that had reinstated an earlier appointee, reaffirming the principle that once a matter has attained finality through higher judicial scrutiny, lower authorities cannot re-open it.

The Anganbari Sevika Post: A History of Disputed Appointments

The dispute centers on the Anganbari Sevika position at Centre No. 121 of Ward No. 23, Nagar Panchayat No. 1, Naugachhia. Initially, Baby Devi (Respondent No. 8) was appointed to this post. However, her tenure was short-lived. Following a complaint from a ward counselor regarding irregularities in the distribution of Take Home Ration and Poshahar, an inquiry was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Naugachhia. This inquiry led to Baby Devi's removal from the post by an order of the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, dated June 30, 2009.

Subsequently, fresh selections were made for the vacant post, and Shila Devi (the Petitioner) was selected and appointed.

A Cycle of Appeals and Judicial Endorsements

The removal of Baby Devi sparked a series of legal challenges that traversed multiple levels of the judicial system, ultimately reaching the High Court twice before the current petition.

1. First High Court Challenge (CWJC No. 9028 of 2009): Baby Devi initially challenged her removal directly before the Patna High Court. On July 31, 2009, the High Court disposed of this petition, directing her to avail the remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

2. Appeal to the Divisional Commissioner (Case No. 12/09-10): Following the High Court's directive, Baby Devi filed an appeal. This appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on September 10, 2009. This dismissal essentially upheld the District Magistrate's original order of removal.

3. Second High Court Challenge (CWJC No. 14243 of 2009): Undeterred, Baby Devi challenged the Divisional Commissioner's dismissal order in another writ petition before the Patna High Court. This petition was also dismissed on November 10, 2009.

At this point, Baby Devi's challenge to her removal had been rejected by the District Magistrate (initially), the Divisional Commissioner on appeal, and twice by the High Court. The selection and engagement of Shila Devi as the Anganbari Sevika, therefore, appeared to have attained finality.

The Unexpected Reversal: District Magistrate's Subsequent Order

Despite the repeated affirmations of her removal by higher authorities, Baby Devi remained persistent. The Petitioner highlighted that Baby Devi "remained silent" regarding the Petitioner's engagement on the post after the Divisional Commissioner's order. However, Baby Devi later preferred another appeal, bearing No. 153/12-15. In a surprising turn of events, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, passed an order on April 20, 2018, in Misc (Anganbari) Appeal Case No. 80/15-16, setting aside his own earlier order dated June 30, 2009, which had removed Baby Devi.

This order by the District Magistrate led to a consequential order issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Naugachhia, on May 23, 2018, directing Shila Devi to hand over charge to Baby Devi.

Petitioner's Challenge in the High Court: A Question of Jurisdiction

Shila Devi (the Petitioner) then filed the present Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11547 of 2018 to quash the District Magistrate's order dated April 20, 2018, and the consequential CDPO order dated May 23, 2018.

The Petitioner's counsel argued that the District Magistrate's order of April 20, 2018, was a "non-jurisdictional order". The core of this argument was that once the order for the removal of Baby Devi (Respondent No. 8) had been "approved up to this Hon'ble Court," meaning the High Court had upheld her removal twice, the District Magistrate had no authority to revisit or set aside his earlier order. Such an act, according to the Petitioner, amounted to the District Magistrate reviewing an order that had already been affirmed by a higher court, which is legally impermissible.

The State's Concession and Private Respondent's Defense

During the hearing, the learned counsel for the State acknowledged the peculiar situation. They submitted that the State was "not in a position to defend that under what circumstances an order which has been passed by the District Magistrate approved by the Commissioner and subsequently approved by this Hon'ble Court can be reviewed by the District Magistrate". This essentially conceded that the District Magistrate's later order appeared to be without legal basis.

Learned counsel for Baby Devi (private Respondent No. 8), on the other hand, simply submitted that the appointment of the Petitioner was "bad in law" and that is why she had filed the writ petition.

High Court's Deliberation and Ruling

The High Court meticulously reviewed the case history. It noted that the appointment to the Anganbari Sevika post had been "taken twice". The Court acknowledged that Baby Devi's earlier removal had been "approved up to this Hon'ble Court". The Court also highlighted that it was "not clear that whether the respondent No. 8 has participated in the second appointment process or not but has started challenging the appointment of present petitioner by way of filing appeal and subsequent challenge which is not permissible in law particularly when the petitioner's appointment has already been tested up to the Hon'ble High Court and it was found that her appointment was illegal". This last phrase seems to contain a minor factual inaccuracy in the provided text, as the previous High Court orders had upheld Baby Devi's removal, implicitly validating the subsequent appointment process leading to Shila Devi. However, the overall thrust of the Court's reasoning was clear: a matter settled by higher courts cannot be reopened by a lower authority.

Based on this understanding, the High Court concluded that the District Magistrate's order of April 20, 2018, was legally unsound. The Court allowed the writ petition, thereby quashing the District Magistrate's order and the consequential order issued by the CDPO.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces a fundamental principle of administrative law and judicial hierarchy: the doctrine of finality of judicial pronouncements. Once a higher court has adjudicated on a matter, especially when it has affirmed the decision of a lower authority, that lower authority cannot subsequently reverse its own decision on the same facts. Such a reversal would lead to endless litigation and undermine the authority and finality of court orders. The Patna High Court, in this case, effectively prevented a lower administrative authority from overstepping its bounds and reopening a matter that had been thoroughly litigated and decided upon by higher judicial forums.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTE1NDcjMjAxOCMxI04=-xrqpAFEf--am1--64=