Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul i.e. the respondent no. 6, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika at Centre no. 09, Musahari Tola, Thumha, Block-Pipra, District-Supaul has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.08.2013, passed by the Collector, Supaul in Appeal Case no. 25 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has stood dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that while the petitioner was working as Anganwadi Sewika at Centre no. 09, Musahari Tola, Thumha, Block-Pipra, District-Supaul, she was served with a letter dated 24.07.2012 containing an allegation levelled against her regarding the irregularities, found during the inspection conducted by the respondent no. 6 on 06.07.2012, whereafter the petitioner had appeared before the authorities and submit her explanation, however, the District Programme Officer, Supaul, by his order dated 27.08.2012, has cancelled the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika, whereafter the petitioner had challenged the same by filing an appeal which was numbered as Appeal no. 44 of 2012, however, the same has also stood dismissed by the learned Collector, Supaul by an order dated 16.10.2012. 3. The petitioner had then filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 2777 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul as also the appellate order dated 16.10.2012 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.02.2013, had though not interfered with the original order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the respondent no. 6 but had held the appellate order dated 16.10.2012 to be a cryptic and a non-speaking order, hence, had quashed the same and remanded the matter back to the Collector, Supaul for passing a fresh order. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing by the learned Collector, Supaul and then the impugned order dated 14.08.2013 has been passed by the learned Collector, Supaul, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner herein and this is how the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Collector, Supaul has again passed a cryptic and a non-speaking order, hence the same is bad in law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Collector, Supaul has again passed a cryptic and a non-speaking order, hence the same is bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2023 (1) PLJR 323 (Mehin Nigar Begum vs. State of Bihar) to contend that a formal inquiry is required to be held before passing of the order of removal from service and on this ground as well, the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted, by referring to the original order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the respondent no. 6, that serious irregularities were detected by the respondent no. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted, by referring to the original order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the respondent no. 6, that serious irregularities were detected by the respondent no. 6 at the time of inspection which can be culled out from the said order dated 27.08.2012, relevant paragraph whereof, is reproduced hereinbelow: – ^^fiijk ifj;kstuk ds dsUæ dksM&09 eqlgjh Vksyk] Fkqegk ij dsUæ lapkyu esa vfu;ferrk ds lacaèk esa fnukad 04-08-2012 dks vèkksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa lquokbZ dh x;hA mDr dsUæ ij ftyk Áksxzke inkfèkdkjh] lqikSy }kjk Lo;a fnukad 06-07-2012 dks fujh{k.k fd;k x;k] vkaŒ dsUæ ij pkSdh] eos'kh ,oa pkjk j[kk gqvk FkkA dsUæ ij cksMZ ugha yxk gqvk Fkk ds vkyksd esa bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 1064@ÁksŒ fnukad 24-07-2011 }kjk lsfodk lqeu dqekjh ls Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax dh x;hA fnukad 28-07-2012 dks mifLFkr jgdj viuk i{k j[kus dk volj fn;k x;kA ysfdu mDr frfFk dks lquokbZ esa mifLFkr u gksdj fnukad 04-08-2012 dks lquokbZ esa Jherh lqeu dqekjh mifLFkr gqbZA fnukad 06-07-2012 dks 11-30 cts Á'uxr dsUæ dk vèkksgLrk{kjh }kjk fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds le; dsUæ ij ek=k 04 cPps mifLFkr ik;s x;s ftuesa ,d cPpk xSj ukekafdr Fkk] dsUæ ,d cM+k cjkenk esa Fkk] ftlesa dsUæ ds ySDlh] ehuw vkfn ds lkFk pkSdh] eos'kh ,oa pkjk j[kk gqvk Fkk] ftlls yx jgk Fkk fd dsUæ LFky cjkens ds ekfyd }kjk mi;ksx esa yk;k tk jgk gSA 04 cPps ckgj [kqys eSnku esa cSBs FksA lgkf;dk }kjk iks"kkgkj cukus dh rS;kjh dh tk jgh FkhA ;g dsUæ eqlgjh Vksyk ds uke ij gS vkSj dsUæ LFky ls FkksMh+ nwjh ij eqlgjh Vksyk fLFkr gS] ysfdu dsUæ ij bl leqnk; ds ,d Hkh cPps mifLFkr ugha Fks] lsfodk ls bl lacaèk esa iwNus ij dksbZ tokc ugha fn;k x;kA iqu% lsfodk ls ;g iwNus ij fd dsUæ esa bl egknfyr dh fdruh la[;k vkSj fdrus ykHkkFkhZ gS] lsfodk }kjk dqN Hkh ugha crk;k x;kA dsUæ ij djhc vkèkk ?kaVk jgus ds ckn Hkh 04 cPpksa ds vykos ,d Hkh cPps ugha vk;sA lsfodk dks vkSj cPpksa dks cqykus ds fy, dgk x;k ysfdu og cPpksa dks cqyk u ldhA iks"kkgkj dk fujh{k.k djus ij 1-500 fdŒ xzke ls 2-00 fdŒ xzke pkoy ,oa 400 xzke puk dk iqyko cuk;k tk jgk FkkA bl rjg foHkkxh; funsZ'k gS fd iks"kkgkj iwjh ek=k esa cuk;k tk;sxk] dk ikyu ugha fd;k tk jgk Fkk] lkFk gh dsUæ ds ckgj Áeq[krk ls uke iV~V ugha Vkaxk x;k FkkA** 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to the guidelines issued by the Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna vide letters dated 20.06.2012 and 14.03.2012, relevant portion whereof, are reproduced hereinbelow: – ^^dafMdk ¼2½ dks fuEu Ádkj iढ+k tk; (Letter dt. 20.06.2012): – dsUæ lapkyu dh fuèkkZfjr vofèk esa fdlh Hkh le; vkaxuckM+h dsUæ ij iathÑr cPpksa dh la[;k fcuk i;kZIr dkj.k ds pkSng ;k pkSng ls de ik;h tkrh gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ml dsUæ dh lsfodk dks p;ueqDr djus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;A Letter dt. 14.03.2012 tkap ds Øe esa fdlh dsUæ ij uke iV~V rFkk ykHkqdksa dks fn;s tkus okyh lkexzh dh ek=k dk Prominent Display ;fn ugha ik;k tkrk gS rks blds fy, lsfodk dks p;ueqDr djus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;A** 7. The learned counsel for the respondent- State has further submitted that the respondent no. 6 had duly considered the submissions put forth by the petitioner and only then, had passed the order dated 27.08.2012, as would be apparent from the consideration made by the respondent no. The learned counsel for the respondent- State has further submitted that the respondent no. 6 had duly considered the submissions put forth by the petitioner and only then, had passed the order dated 27.08.2012, as would be apparent from the consideration made by the respondent no. 6, which is reproduced hereinbelow: – ^^fnukad 04-08-2012 dks lquokbZ esa lsfodk }kjk ÁLrqr Li"Vhdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA dsUæ lapkyu dh fLFkfr] ykHkkFkhZ oxZ ¼eqlgjh Vksyk dk½ dk dsUæ tqM+ko ugha gksuk ,oa lsfodk }kjk ÁLrqr Li"Vhdj.k ,oa tu Áfrfufèk;ksa ds vkosnu esa dkQh fojksèkkHkkl ik;k x;kA ,d rjQ dsUæ fujh{k.k esa dsUæ lapkyu dh fLFkfr n;uh; ik;h x;h vkSj nwljs rjQ lsfodk }kjk vius cpko esa euxढ+r rF;ksa dk lgkjk fy;k x;k gS ftl ij tuÁfrfufèk;ksa dk Hkh lgefr fy;k x;k gS rks nwljh rjQ lsfodk dks Hkh irk ugha gS fd dsUæ esa egknfyr dh fdruh vkcknh gS vkSj fdrus ykHkkFkhZ gSaA ;s rF; lsfodk dh dk;Z'kSyh ,oa dk;ZfLFkfr dks Lor% n'kkZrk gSA vr% dsUæ lapkyu esa vfu;ferrk Lor% Áekf.kr gksrk gSA funs'kd] vkbZŒlhŒMhŒ,lŒ fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad 2120] fnukad 20-06-2012 ds dafMdk 1¼2½ la'kksfèkr fd dsUæ lapkyu dh fuèkkZfjr vofèk esa fdlh Hkh le; vkaŒ dsUæ ij iathd`r cPpksa dh la[;k fcuk i;kZIr dkj.k ds pkSng ;k pkSng ls de ik;k tkrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ml dsUæ dh lsfodk dk p;u jn~n fd;k tk;sxkA iqu% funs'kd] vkbZŒlhŒMhŒ,lŒ fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad 956] fnukad 14-03-2012 ds dafMdk 04 ds vuqlkj fdlh dsUæ ij ukeiV~V ugha ik;s tkus ij lsfodk dk p;u jn~n djus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;A vr% mDr ds vkyksd esa lqeu dqekjh lsfodk dsUæ&eqlgjh Vksyk FkqEgk dsUæ la[;k&09 dk p;u jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA iks"kkgkj dh ek=k ftruh [kpZ ugha fd;k x;k gS fd jkf'k foxr N% ekg dh olwyh dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh bls lqfuf'pr djsaxhA lkFk gh cxy ds dsUæ ls Vsx dj dsUæ dk lapkyu cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh lqfuf'pr djk;saxs ,oa dsUæ ij lsfodk p;u dh dkjZokbZ ÁkjEHk djsaxhA p;ueqDr lsfodk Jhefr lqeu dqekjh ikfjr p;ueqfDr vkns'k ds fo:} ftyk inkfèkdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa vkns'k fuxZr dh frfFk ls 30 fnuksa ds vanj vihy dj ldrh gSA** 8. The learned counsel for the respondent State has also submitted that the original order dated 27.08.2012, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika has been cancelled, was not interfered with in the earlier round of litigation i.e. in C.W.J.C. no. 2777 of 2013, hence, has stood confirmed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.02.2013 and only the appellate order dated 16.10.2012 was interfered with, inasmuch as the same was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned Collector, Supaul for re-consideration, whereupon he has passed a detailed, reasoned and a speaking order dated 14.08.2013, as would be apparent from a bare perusal of the same, hence, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the respondent authorities. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no error in the procedure adopted by the respondents, thus this Court is not required to sit in Appeal over the decision arrived at by the respondent authorities. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. This Court finds that the respondent no. 6 has passed an order dated 27.08.2012, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika has been cancelled on the grounds mentioned therein, which was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 2777 of 2013, however, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2013, had refrained from setting aside the same, hence, the same stood affirmed, thus, as far as the order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the respondent no. 6 is concerned, the same requires no interference. 2777 of 2013, however, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2013, had refrained from setting aside the same, hence, the same stood affirmed, thus, as far as the order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the respondent no. 6 is concerned, the same requires no interference. Now, coming to the current order dated 14.08.2013, passed by the learned Collector, Supaul, upon remand, this Court finds that the same has been passed after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the guidelines issued by the Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna, as contained in letters dated 20.06.2012 and 14.03.2012, hence, no infirmity can be found in the said order dated 14.08.2013, which, in any view of the matter, is a reasoned and a speaking order, which upon consideration of the defense put forth by the petitioner, has come to a finding that the petitioner was not running the Centre as per the prescribed guidelines and she had engaged in gross negligence, which warranted cancellation of her selection as Anganwadi Sevika. 10. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2004(2) PLJR 833 (Sajjan Devi vs. State of Bihar), paragraphs no. 11 to 16 whereof are reproduced herein below: – “(11) The first question to be considered is as to whether the engagement of Anganbari Sewika is an engagement on a post in the Government service. If their engagements are on the posts in the Government service and they have been appointed following a procedure, in that case their engagements cannot be cancelled on the ground of misconduct without holding a departmental enquiry as provided under the Rules. If in case, they are not holding a post in the Government service and their engagements are on the basis of contract of a service under a Scheme, then their services can be terminated in terms of the agreement after following a procedure consistent with the requirement of principle of natural justice. (12) The Scheme has been made to provide help to the poor and downtrodden persons covered by the Scheme as stated above. Engagement is made only by holding an interview and no payment of salary is being made nor the appointment is being made against any post in the Government service. Honorarium is paid for performing the duties for a particular period. Engagement is made only by holding an interview and no payment of salary is being made nor the appointment is being made against any post in the Government service. Honorarium is paid for performing the duties for a particular period. In case, their services are not found satisfactory, they can be removed from the post of Anganbari Sewika. Term of appointment clearly shows that they are not engaged in Government service nor are they holding any post in the Government Service, having umbrella of protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In case, it is found that they are not performing duties, for which they were engaged, then in terms of the engagement letter they can be removed. They cannot claim initiation of a regular departmental enquiry prior to their disengagement. (13) Thus, the post of Anganbari Sewika is not a post in the Government service and as such the private respondents cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. (14) It appears from the record that inspections were held several times and the private respondents were found absent from their duties. It was also found that while on duty, they did not discharge their duties, for which they were engaged and, thereafter, show-cause notices were served upon them and they did not file any show-cause and, thereafter, their engagements were cancelled. (15) Requirement of principle of natural justice has been complied with and as they are not in Government service, they cannot claim a regular proceeding prior to disengagement, or removal by treating the aforesaid act as misconduct. Even alternatively it is assumed that they were on temporary employment in the Government service then also it is found that the authorities after having taken into consideration their past conduct as a motive and after giving an opportunity of hearing to them have disengaged them and as such they cannot claim any infirmity in their disengagement on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. (16) Thus, the orders dated 13.2.1989 and 18.2.1989 passed by the authorities cancelling the engagement of the private respondents as Anganbari Sewika, who had filed C.W.J.C. No. 290 of 1991 challenging their cancellation of engagement as Anganbari Sewika are held to be valid orders and they do not suffer from any irregularity and, accordingly, C.W.J.C. No. 290 of 1991 filed by the private respondents is dismissed. 11. 11. This Court would now deem it fit and proper to refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434 [: 2016 (3) BLJ 8 ], paragraphs no. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced herein below: – “7. Having considered the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The charges against the appellant were very clear as would be apparent from the show cause dated 22.02.2012, which was issued in light of the findings in the enquiry report as well as the relevant documents/registers which were required to be maintained at the Centre. Reply given by the appellant, copy of which has been brought on record, does not indicate any justification and rather it has been stated that on 24.09.2011 at the time of Inspection, the children were still coming and on 07.10.2011, she herself had gone to call the children and during that time the inspection was held. It was further stated by the appellant that on 30.09.2011 she had become ill due to being drenched by rain. We find that such explanation is vague and evasive and does not inspire confidence. The spirit and object of running Anganbadi Centres cannot be overemphasized and the purpose is to ensure the welfare of children from the lowermost and deprived strata of society. Any lapse in execution of the said scheme has to be taken very seriously. Closure of even one day entails the beneficiaries going without their meals, which cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the authorities cancelling her selection as well as the procedure adopted by them prior to passing such order. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.” 12. It would be apt to refer to yet another judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 20 , paragraphs no. 4 and 5 whereof are reproduced herein below: – “4. In our considered view, the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of Constitution of India. 4 and 5 whereof are reproduced herein below: – “4. In our considered view, the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of Constitution of India. Considering the very nature of engagement which provides of honorarium, we are of the view that in case the appellant still feels aggrieved, she may approach the Civil Court for damages. There is nothing at stake in such a scheme other than honorarium. For such contractual engagements the relief of reinstatement is not appropriate and even if there is breach of the scheme or any other principle of law, the claim should ordinarily be permitted, if found good on merits, only for damages. 5. The appeal is dismissed. 13. Now, coming to the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mehin Nigar Begum (supra), apparently the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as the original order dated 27.08.2012 has already stood affirmed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition, accordingly the same stands dismissed.