JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner being a resident of village Yogitola Panchayat, Jhiktia where the Anganbari Centre situates, has sought for direction upon the respondents to cancel the appointment of respondent no.6 as Anganbari Sevika and for direction upon the respondents to initiate fresh appointment process from among eligible persons to the post of Anganbari Sevika. 2. The facts, as has been averred in the writ application, in brief, are that the respondent no.6 on the basis of forged documents procured appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika. Being aggrieved by the selection of respondent no.6, the petitioner along with villagers preferred representation before the respondents, which fell on deaf ears. Being aggrieved by the inaction/indifference of respondent authorities, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the appointment of respondent no.6 is liable to be cancelled on the ground of non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria. Learned counsel further submits that conduct of the respondent authorities in not looking into the grievance of the villagers, amounts to action sans probity in administration and de hors of the guidelines meant for appointment of Anganbari Sevika. 4. To a pointed query as to maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 1 SCC 501 (Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors.) and submits that the writ of quo warranto is maintainable. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, repudiating the contentions made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the appointment of respondent no.6 has been made after observing the rules and regulation and as such her appointment as Anganbari Sevika cannot be questioned in any view of the matter and the petitioner is not entitled to make such grievance as the post was for Anganbari Sevika and even the petitioner was not eligible for that post. It has further been submitted that so far as appointment of respondent no.6 as Anganbari Sevika is concerned, she has been duly appointed and since thereafter she is continuing her service as such by performing all her duties properly without any stigma on her part, which is evident from letter dated 27.11.2000 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the respondent no.6 was married in the year 1990 with one Rabi Paswan at Maldah, who deserted her in 1992 and since then she has been residing with her father Jhako Paswan at village Jhiktia under P.S-Barharwa, District-Sahibganj as evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Further it has been submitted that from the Identity Card of the respondent no.6 issued by the Election Commission of India on 12.11.1995 shows that she was residing at village Jhiktia as evident from Annexures-D and D/1 to the counter affidavit. Apart from residential certificate, the respondent no.6 has passed Secondary School Examination from N.D.N Girls High School, Barharwa and also passed I.A from B.S.K. College, Barharwa as per Annexure-E and E/1 to the counter affidavit and the appointment of respondent no.6 has been approved by the competent authority. She has been sent for training and competed her training and has been discharging all duties assigned to her properly which is evident from letter dated 18.09.2001, 15.06.2002 and 28.01.2003 vide Annexure-F, F/1 and F/2 to the counter affidavit. 6. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent no.6 more or less reiterating the submissions made by the respondent-State. 7. Learned counsel for the State apart from submission made in the counter affidavit has submitted that the Anganbari Sevika is not a holder of civil post, therefore, writ of quo warranto, challenging the appointment of respondent no.6 is not tenable in the eye of law. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the State apart from submission made in the counter affidavit has submitted that the Anganbari Sevika is not a holder of civil post, therefore, writ of quo warranto, challenging the appointment of respondent no.6 is not tenable in the eye of law. 8. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner, in view of the following facts and reasons: (I) Admittedly, the petitioner being a resident of the village where the Anganbari Centre situates, has challenged the appointment of respondent no.6 but as evident from the various documents of the counter affidavit filed by the State, the selection of respondent no.6 as Anganbari Sevika has been done as per the guidelines and there is no infraction of statutory guidelines so as to nullify the selection of respondent no.6. (II) Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision reported in (2013) 1 SCC 501 (Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors.) wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to inter alia hold that “writ of quo warranto will lie when an appointment is made contrary to statutory provisions, but in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any foundational facts with regard to violation of any guidelines in so far as appointment of respondent no.6 is concerned. Moreover, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681 (State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Ameerbi and Ors.) wherein at para 13, 14, 20 it has been held as under: “13. The posts of anganwadi workers are not statutory posts. They have been created in terms of the scheme. It is one thing to say that there exists as relationship of employer and employee by and between the State and anganwadi workers but it is another thing to say that they are not holders of civil post. 14. We are not oblivious to the fact that their presence in their respective villages is extremely important. They are supposed to make significant contribution to the society. They, we understand, are required to carry out a large number of activities, primary amongst them being the welfare of the children. 20. Anganwadi workers, however, do not carry on any function of the State. They do not hold post under a statute. They are supposed to make significant contribution to the society. They, we understand, are required to carry out a large number of activities, primary amongst them being the welfare of the children. 20. Anganwadi workers, however, do not carry on any function of the State. They do not hold post under a statute. Their posts are not created. Recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case. The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for the purpose of their appointment within the constitutional scheme exists. We do not think that the said decision has any application in the instant case.” 9. Since the appointment of respondent no.6 has been done as per the guidelines and there has been no complaints whatsoever. With regard to eligibility of the respondent no.6, no ground has been made out by the petitioner to interfere in the selection of respondent no.6. 10. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court would be loath to tinker with the selection of respondent no.6. Resultantly the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.