KANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVERY Tola comprising of the population of 1000 is entitled to have one Anganbadi Sevika and one Anganbadi Sahayika. There may be a village where there is only one Tola. There may be villages where there are more than one Tola. The object of appointing Anganbadi Sevikas and Anganbadi Sahayikas is to ensure preprimary education to the children of the villages. Before 1998 there was no Gram Panchayat in the State of Bihar, but Anganbadi Sevikas as well as Anganbadi Sahayikas were to be appointed. The Government thus issued a guideline for such appointments.

(2.) IT must be kept in mind that neither Anganbadi Sevika nor Anganbadi Sahayikas are employed. They are authorised to render voluntary services. Their engagement can be brought to an end only on the ground of irresponsibility. However, they are not entitled to a notice to disengage them and that is specifically a part of the scheme for appointing such Anganbadi Sevikas as well as Anganbadi Sahayikas.

(3.) IN Bagaha Prakhand, there are 24 panchayats and there are 297 Kendras which suggest that there are 297 Tolas. For these Kendras, Anganbadi Sevikas and Anganbadi Sahayikas were selected. Subsequently, as authorised, the District Magistrate through the Sub -Divisional Officer caused an enquiry to be made in relation to selection of such Anganbadi Sevikas and Anganbadi Sahayikas. The Sub -Divisional Officer investigated selection in relation to 14 Panchayats and found that each such 14 Panchayats has followed the same pattern of selection. He pointed out five defects in the selection. One of the major defects pointed out by him was that these selections were done on a date fixed by the Panchayat at the Panchayat Office and that the selection was not done at Tolas and accordingly in respect of the person selected for a particular Tola, it is not known whether the people residing therein had agreed by majority to such selection. The District "Magistrate then directed the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) to cancel such selection and to select new volunteers. In terms thereof the CDPO issued a notice and thereby did away the engagements of all such selected volunteers including those of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the report of the SubDivisional Officer pertains to only 14 Panchayats but by the orders impugned the engagements in all other Panchayats have also been terminated. It was contended that the same could not be done. It. was next contended that even after the inspection was carried out by the Sub -Divisional Officer, selection took place and at least those selections could not be set at naught based on an anterior report. In the report, five points of irregularity have been highlighted, and amongst them the irregularity already mentioned above was also highlighted.