JUDGMENT : Anjana Mishra, J. The present Intra Court Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, who is an Anganbari Sevika and has been removed from service and has challenged the order of the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur in Miscellaneous (Anganbari) Revision Case No. 69 of 2013-14 wherein by order dated 21.10.2013, the Commissioner has affirmed the order dated 28.06.2013 issued by the District Magistrate, Banka passed in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 73 of 2012-13. Both these orders emanated out of an order dated 30.06.2012 whereby the District Programme Officer, Banka has cancelled the selection of the appellant-petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre Code No. 21 at Chatna Bazar, Shambhuganj, Banka. 2. The brief fact is that the appellant-petitioner was functioning on the post of Anganbari Sevika at Aganbari Centre Code No. 21 which came under an inspection on 19.05.2012 at 11:00 a.m. and since the children were not found present at the centre, the appellant-petitioner was subjected to a show cause on 04.06.2012. The said show cause was answered by the appellant-petitioner on 25.06.2012 (Annexure-1) wherein she contended that on account of intense heat, 15 children who had come to the centre were taken away from the centre by the guardians after taking the midday meal. The said fact was supported by a document signed by the respective parents of the children. However, the said show cause was not accepted as satisfactory and, therefore, on the charge of misuse of official functions and dereliction of duty and under instructions of the Director, ICDS, vide his letter no. 956 dated 14.03.2012, the appellant-petitioner was removed from the post of Anganbari Sevika of Anganbari Centre Code No. 21, Chatnabazar, Shambhuganj, Banka. 3. The appellant-petitioner filed an appeal against the aforementioned order vide Appeal No. 73/2012-13 (Mamta Kumari Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The Collector, Banka has rejected the case of the appellant-petitioner on 10.07.2013 and affirmed the order dated 30.06.2012 issued by the District Programme Officer vide his letter no. 939, thus, upholding the removal of the appellant-petitioner. Against the aforementioned order, the appellant-petitioner again preferred Aganbari Revision Case No. 69/2013-14 which was again considered by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur and rejected vide order dated 21.10.2013, on the ground of want of jurisdiction and hence the appellant-petitioner came to this Court. 939, thus, upholding the removal of the appellant-petitioner. Against the aforementioned order, the appellant-petitioner again preferred Aganbari Revision Case No. 69/2013-14 which was again considered by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur and rejected vide order dated 21.10.2013, on the ground of want of jurisdiction and hence the appellant-petitioner came to this Court. The order dated 21.10.2013 is extracted hereinunder :- “The petitioner Mamta Kumari W/o Niwas Singh, resident of village Chatma Bazar, P.S. Shambhuganj, District-Banka has preferred this revision against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by District Magistrate, Banka in Misc. (Anganwari) Appeal Case No. 73/2012-13. In the said order the District Magistrate has confirmed the order passed by the DPO, ICDS, Banka vide Memo No. 939 dated 30.06.2012 terminating the services of the petitioner (sevika). The petitioner has stated that she was selected for the post of Sevika and discharged her duties honestly. The services of the petitioner was terminated on the basis of the enquiry report of the CDPO, Shambhuganj. The CDPO, Shambhuganj inspected the centre at 11 a.m. on 19.05.2012. The CDPO informed the DPO, ICDS, Banka in her report that there was not a single child present in the Centre at the time of inspection. DPO issued a show cause notice to the Sevika for it. The Sevika replied but the DPO was not satisfied with her reply. The DPO, ICDS, Banka terminated the Sevika vide Memo No. 939 dated 30.06.2012. The Sevika moved the District Magistrate, Banka but the District Magistrate, Banka confirmed the order passed by the DPO, ICDS, Banka. On going through the details of the case, I find that the petitioner Mamta Kumari has filed this revision against the order of the District Magistrate. No revision against the order of the District Magistrate lies before the Divisional Commissioner as per the guidelines issued by the Government. Hence the revision petition is hereby dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction. The case is hereby disposed.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the action taken against the appellant-petitioner is wholly on nonest grounds and there has been no consideration of the appellant-petitioner’s show cause by any of the authorities. Hence the revision petition is hereby dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction. The case is hereby disposed.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the action taken against the appellant-petitioner is wholly on nonest grounds and there has been no consideration of the appellant-petitioner’s show cause by any of the authorities. It was submitted that on account of acute heat conditions on 19.05.2012, the children had taken the midday meals and had been discharged from the centre at around 11:00 a.m. Thereafter, according to the appellant-petitioner, the Supervisor of the Department inspected the centre at or about 11:00 a.m. or just thereafter and having found absence of children, it was presumed that the appellant-petitioner was not performing her duties or that the children had not come to the centre as they were not personally present at the said point of time. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner further contended that though the attendance register of the centre of 19.05.2012 was shown to the authorities concerned in which the presence of 15 children was indicated (Annexure-J) yet the same was not accepted and the appellant-petitioner, after issuance of perfunctory show cause notice, was removed from the centre. Relying on a decision of this Court in CWJC No. 21195 of 2012, the petitioner contended that in a similar situation when children had not been found at the centre on account of extremely hot weather condition prevailing, the centre had been closed earlier and that there being no complaint from any of the beneficiary from any centre, the removal of the appellant-petitioner who had worked for several long years appeared to be too harsh and, therefore, the orders passed against her in that case have been set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that in the case of the appellant-petitioner the Department Circular No. 2120 dated 20.06.2012 had not been taken into consideration which was wholly arbitrary and in the report it is evident that the centre was open but only the children were not present. It was further contended by means of supplementary affidavit that on the same post and on the same ground, three other Anganbari Sevikas, who have been removed were reinstated and, therefore, the action of the authorities was not only arbitrary but also discriminatory. It appears from Paragraph Nos. It was further contended by means of supplementary affidavit that on the same post and on the same ground, three other Anganbari Sevikas, who have been removed were reinstated and, therefore, the action of the authorities was not only arbitrary but also discriminatory. It appears from Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 & 8 of the supplementary affidavit that one Sheela Kumari (Sevika) preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22/2014-15 and was reinstated by the District Programme Officer vide order passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare on 22.05.2015. Similarly one Sadhna Kumari (Sevika) was reinstated after she preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 70/2012-13 and one Shobha Kumari (Sevika) was also reinstated in Misc. Appeal No. 21/2014-15 by the orders of the District Magistrate, Banka on 20.02.2013. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the aforementioned three sevikas were terminated on the same ground and were reinstated by the court below whereas the present petitioner is being discriminated. 7. Noting the aforementioned, this Court vide order dated 04.02.2019 had called upon the said respondents to answer the aforementioned submission wherein he has referred to the guidelines as modified on 20th of June 2012 which states that the service of Anganbari workers can be dispensed with if the number of children at the centre falls below 14. 8. In the instant case, the same situation did not prevail and the appellant-petitioner's centre was not found having any children. The said authorities at paragraph -11 of the counter affidavit has substantially stated that the case of the appellant-petitioner cannot be equated with the case of C.W.J.C. No. 21195 of 2012 as there is no similarity between the present appellant-petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 24293 of 2013. In the earlier case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 21195 of 2012 (Kumari Archana Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) the number of children was less at the time of inspection whereas in the case of the present appellant-petitioner none of the children was available. Over and above said situation many other discrepancies had also been noted in the report of the CDPO, Shambhuganj. State of Bihar & Ors.) the number of children was less at the time of inspection whereas in the case of the present appellant-petitioner none of the children was available. Over and above said situation many other discrepancies had also been noted in the report of the CDPO, Shambhuganj. So far as three cases of alleged discrimination are concerned which were allowed by the Deputy Director, Welfare Bhagalpur, the three Anganbari Sevikas, who were removed and were reinstated in their posts in their respective centers, the presence of children was found to be less in number whereas at the centre of the appellant-petitioner none of the children was present. Moreover, after having been removed from service, it was informed that one Rajni Bharti had been appointed in her place on 24.11.2018 and she has started working on the said post. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents and also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. After considering all the facts and circumstances, it appears that the learned Single Judge has duly considered the Cricular No. 2120 dated 20.06.2012. After distinguishing the case of the present appellant-petitioner from that of other Sevikas who had come to this Court in CWJC No. 21195 of 2012, the Court came to a categorical finding that similar parameters could not be followed in the case of the present appellant-petitioner. We are also in agreement with the aforementioned consideration of the learned Single judge as he has stated that at the centre in which the present appellant-petitioner was functioning, there was no child present at the centre whereas in the case of other centres the number of children was just below the stipulated margin. Moreover a right has now accrued in favour of Respondent No. 5, Rajini Bharti, who has since been selected and is functioning on the said post. 10. In view of such facts and circumstance, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal or grant relief to the present appellant-petitioner and thus, the order of the learned single Judge is upheld. The appeal stands dismissed.