Sapna Kumari vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10318 of 2020
======================================================
Sapna Kumari W/o Mantu Prasad, Resident of Vill and P.O.- Inarwa Fulwar,
Ward No. 04, PS- Lakhaura, Dist- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
Government of Bihar.
2. The Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Social Welfare, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari.
4. The District Programme Officer (ICDS), East Champaran at Motihari.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, East Champaran.
6. Rukhsana Khatoon W/o Azaharuddin, Vill and P.O.- Inarwa Fulwar, Ward
No. 04, PS- Lakhaura, Dist- East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap, G.P
For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-07-2026
Heard Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and learned Advocate for the State.
2. Mr. Praveen Ranjan, learned Advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent no. 6, at the outset, submits that he
is not in opposition to the prayer of petitioner and as much not

Patna High Court CWJC No.10318 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
2/7
pressing the counter affidavit filed on her behalf.
3. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to
an order dated 17.06.2020 passed in Misc. Appeal Case No. 03
of 2019 by the learned District Magistrate, East Champran,
whereby the learned Appellate Authority has been pleased to
order for removal of the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi
Sevika, and directed for new selection process at Bankatwa
Ward No. 4, besides further direction for recovery of entire
honorarium amount from the petitioner for the period she
worked.
4. The petitioner had initially applied for the post of
Anganwadi Sevika along with other eligible candidates against
Advertisement dated 18.07.2013. Upon verification of their
certificates, a merit list was published on 04.09.2013. The
answering respondent having highest (60.20%) merit point was
placed at serial no. 1, while petitioner having only 48.00% merit
point was placed at serial no. 6. Subsequently, a fresh merit list
was published and the petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 and
the selection of the petitioner was accordingly made by taking
note of the provision of the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahaika
Selection Guideline, 2011 that in case of non-availability of the
candidate of Bahulya Varg, the candidate of the second
category given in the guidelines shall be appointed.
5. Aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner,

Patna High Court CWJC No.10318 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
3/7
respondent no. 6 challenged the same by filing Case No. 39 of
2016 before the District Programme Officer, ICDS, Motihari,
East Champaran. Since the challenge of the selection of the
petitioner was also on the ground of fabricated certificate of the
matriculation, therefore, a report was called for from the Bihar
School Examination Board and on being no infirmity found in
the selection of the petitioner, the Case No. 39 of 2016 stood
dismissed. The order of the District Programme Officer was
challenged in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2019 before the Court of
Collector-cum District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.
6. The petitioner, on notice, entered her appearance
and submitted a detailed response. However, while denying the
claim of the respondent no. 6, the District Magistrate has come
out with the finding that the petitioner does not fall within the
category of Bahulya Varg and, as such, her selection does not
appear to be in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
However, while rejecting the appeal, the District Magistrate
further went to the extent whereby, he held that since the
petitioner has failed to bring on record cogent materials in
support of her claim with respect to two school leaving
certificates and thus suspecting their genuineness, directed for
recovery of all the honorarium paid to the petitioner against
discharging her services on the post of Anaganwadi Sevika.
7. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, while assailing the impugned

Patna High Court CWJC No.10318 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
4/7
order has submitted that though the impugned order is against
the provisions of the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahaika Scheme, 2011.
However, the petitioner has no hesitation to participate in the
fresh selection process, in case she is found eligible. However,
she vehemently challenged the part of the order passed by
District Magistrate to the extent whereby the recovery of the
honorarium of the petitioner has been sought for.
8. It is submitted that once the District Programme
Officer, ICDS on receipt of the report from Bihar School
Examination Board has given a specific finding that there is no
infirmity and any irregularity in the matriculation certificate of
the petitioner and the same has been duly verified by the
authority of the Board. In such circumstances, only based upon
suspicion with regard to two school leaving certificates
submitted by the private respondent without any proceeding,
same cannot sustain in the eyes of the law. It is submitted that
suspicion howsoever strong, it cannot take the place of proof
unless it is proved, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner in a full fledged proceeding.
9. To support the aforesaid contention reliance has
also been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in CWJC
No. 7527 of 2014 (Pinki Devi Vrs The State of Bihar and Ors.)
as well as the order passed in CWJC No. 8239 of 2017 ( Smt.
Anita Kumari Vrs The State of Bihar and Ors.) on 16.12.2026

Patna High Court CWJC No.10318 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
5/7
which came to be disposed off, wherein, the Court has held that
once it is not disputed by the respondent authorities that the
petitioner had worked for a certain period for which she was
paid honorarium, the same cannot be recovered on the ground of
mere irregularity of the appointment of the petitioner.
10. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further drew
the attention of this Court to paragraph no. 7 of the counter
affidavit wherein, it is stated that the certificate of the petitioner
was sent for verification to the Secretary, BSEB, Patna by the
C.D.P.O. through its Letter No. 54 dated 13.03.2014 and in
response to that letter, the Secretary, BSEB, Patna vide its Letter
No. 3256 dated 02.06.2014 represented that the certificate of the
petitioner is genuine as per record of the Board.
11. Having considered the materials available on
record, this Court finds substance in the submission of learned
Advocate for the petitioner. Once the genuineness of the
matriculation certificate of the petitioner was duly verified by
the Bihar School Examination Board and it has been
categorically reported by the Secretary, B.S.E.B. that the
certificate of the petitioner is genuine as per the record of the
Board. Mere allegation or any suspicion with regard to the
genuineness of the school leaving certificate without any
independent enquiry would not suggest that the appointment of
the petitioner is based upon a fraudulent means and void ab

Patna High Court CWJC No.10318 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
6/7
initio. Though, the appointment of the petitioner has been set
aside on the ground only that she does not fall within the
Bahulya category nonetheless the District Magistrate observed
as to under which circumstances her selection has been done
and it has not even been disclosed in the proceeding of Aam
Sabha directed for recovery of honorarium which action is not at
all permissible in such a casual manner. The appointment of the
petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances may be termed as
illegal, but in no circumstances, it can be said to have been
obtained on the basis of fraud. Once this Court comes to the
conclusion that the very appointment of the petitioner is not
obtained by claiming fraud or void ab initio, in such
circumstances, the recovery of honorarium for the services,
which she had rendered after her selection till the appellate
order, is wholly unsustainable in law. This Court may refer to
the decision rendered in the case of Man Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh: LiveLaw (SC) 341, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court
ruled that even if the appointment is irregular, if the employee
had discharged the duties and in lieu of the duties he had to be
paid.
12. Accordingly, this Court set aside the order dated
17.06.2020 to the extent whereby the District Magistrate has
directed for recovery of honorarium amount from the petitioner
for the period she worked.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10318 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
7/7
13. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.

(Harish Kumar, J)
sumit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.07.2026
Transmission Date NA