JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. By an office order, issued, on 11.3.1999, by the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Dalgaon, the petitioner, a resident of village Kheteswar, was temporarily engaged as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre No. 22B of village Kheteswar, under Dalgaon-Sialmari ICDS project, on an honorarium of Rs. 438 per month. The order, dated 11.3.2009, made it clear that the engagement of the petitioner was purely temporary and could be terminated at any time. Pursuant to the appointment, so made, the petitioner started working and, in course of time, successfully completed requisite training in second division. 3. By an order, dated 18.11.2000, issued by the said Project Officer, when the petitioner's service was terminated, the petitioner put the same to challenge by filing a writ petition under Article 226, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 5250/2001. By order, dated 14.11.2002, the said writ petition was disposed of with direction issued to the respondents to the effect that if the scheme, in question, was still in force, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with such back wages as may be admissible. Liberty was, however, given by the High Court to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. While passing its order, dated 14.11.2002, the court pointed out that while the petitioner had been functioning, pursuant to an appointment order, dated 11.3.1999, she was served with a show-cause notice, but it had not been mentioned, in the said show-cause notice, as to what Rules and regulations the petitioner had not followed and as to why the petitioner was being alleged to have been negligent in performing her duties. 4. Following the order, dated 14.11.2002, aforementioned, whereby the said writ petition was disposed of, an order was made, on 30.1.2003, by the State respondents, temporarily engaging the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Centre No. 245 Anganwadi Centre under Dalgaon-Sialmari ICDS project, on an honorarium of Rs. 438 per month. Pursuant to the order, so made on 30.1.2003, the petitioner started working and since then she has been working at the said Anganwadi Centre. 5. 438 per month. Pursuant to the order, so made on 30.1.2003, the petitioner started working and since then she has been working at the said Anganwadi Centre. 5. As the respondents did not pass any order transferring the petitioner, in terms of her request, to the new Anganwadi Centre at Kheteswar, the petitioner, once again, filed a writ petition, under Article 226, which came to be disposed of on 21.10.2009. In its order, the court observed to the effect, inter alia, that since a new Anganwadi Centre, now, stands set up at Kheteswar, which is lying vacant, and that the petitioner has been advised not to undertake any journey and, on the other hand, it has been pointed out, on behalf of the State, that selection, transfer and posting of Anganwadi worker and helpers, at Anganwadi centers, are governed by a set of rules of uniform application. Having so observed, the court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondents concerned to dispose of, in accordance with the rules and guidelines relevant thereto, the petitioner's representation, dated 21.9.2009, seeking transfer to the newly started Anganwadi Centre at Kheteswar. Thereafter, an order has been passed, on 27.11.2009, rejecting the petitioner's representation on the ground that the relevant guidelines do not perceive transfer of an Anganwadi worker from one Anganwadi Centre to another Anganwadi Centre. 6. On the ground, however, that her appointment, as Anganwadi Worker, had been given at a center, which is about 1 km. away from her village, that she had joined the said Anganwadi Centre on an assurance having been given by the respondents that she would be adjusted in any nearby center as soon as a new Anganwdi Centre is approved, at Kheteswar, and that a new Anganwadi Centre has been approved within Khateswar village but she has not been brought to the new Anganwadi Centre, the petitioner has, now, filed this writ petition under Article 226. For the purpose of sustaining this writ petition, the petitioner has further submitted that she has been suffering from heart disease. In support of this contention, the petitioner has submitted a medical certificate issued, on 16.9.2009, by the Senior Medical and Health Officer, Mangaldoi Civil Hospital. 7. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that pursuant to the order of her reinstatement, the petitioner joined unconditionally. In support of this contention, the petitioner has submitted a medical certificate issued, on 16.9.2009, by the Senior Medical and Health Officer, Mangaldoi Civil Hospital. 7. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that pursuant to the order of her reinstatement, the petitioner joined unconditionally. Though she joined on the basis of an appointment order, which was made on the directions issued by the High Court, the petitioner did not express any grievance before the High Court that the High Court's order had not been followed. The petitioner accepted the appointment as far back as in the year 2003 and, after about seven years, the petitioner, now, wants to change her place of posting. The petitioner, in this regard, claims that she is a cardiac patient. There is, however, no material on record to show that the petitioner is a cardiac patient. The petitioner, in support of her disease, relies on a medical certificate, dated 16.9.2009, which shows that the petitioner had not undergone any surgery of heart; rather, she was operated for removal of gall bladder. 8. Coupled with the above, it needs to be noted that it has been pointed out by the respondents, in the impugned order, that the petitioner had earlier worked as Anganwadi Worker at Centre No. 22B of Kheteswar village; but, due to unwillingness, on her part, to work there, she had been released on 18.11.2000, the petitioner challenged her said release order by way of a writ petition and, in pursuance of the order, dated 14.11.2002, passed by the High Court, she came to be appointed as Anganwadi worker at Anganwadi Centre No. 245 of village Kheteswar. It has also been pointed out, in the order aforementioned, that no assurance had ever been given to the petitioner that by way of adjustment, or otherwise, she would be brought to a nearby Anganwadi Centre and that the relevant guidelines of uniform application, nowhere, makes any provision for transfer or adjustment; rather, the guidelines provide that a candidate, for the post of Anganwadi worker/Anganwadi helper, shall be resident of that village, where the Anganwadi center is located; hence, the question of transfer or adjustment does not arise and that a person has to be a local resident in order to be appointed at a given Anganwadi Centre. It has been observed, in the order aforementioned, that the interview, for engagement of Anganwadi worker, in respect of the new Anganwadi Centre of village Kheteswar, has already been held and the process of selection is in progress pursuant to the notification, issued in this regard, on 31.8.1999. The reasons, so assigned in the impugned order, cannot be said to be such reasons, which are irrational, arbitrary or suffering from non-application of mind. 9. Above all, what must be borne in mind is that the High Court's power under Article 226 cannot override the guidelines of appointment, posting and transfer of any service unless such guidelines are themselves under challenge and are found by the High Court to have been suffering from arbitrariness, irrationality and/or violation of law. Article 226 can, therefore, not be invoked for the purpose of overriding the guidelines, which are, otherwise, not under challenge and are not ex facie illegal or without jurisdiction. 10. Considering the fact that the guidelines aforementioned do not envisage transfer of Anganwadi workers and appointment to a post of Anganwadi worker, at a given Anganwadi Centre, shall be from local residents of the area concerned and when the petitioner was not an applicant in the process of selection, which had been initiated by the notification, dated 31.8.2009, the respondents/authorities concerned cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily, illegally, unreasonably or irrationally in declining to transfer the petitioner, by way of adjustment, to the newly created Anganwadi Centre under Kheteswar village. 11. Situated thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed