Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.6.2009, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria, whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika has been terminated as also for quashing of the appellate order dated 29.7.2013, passed by the District Magistrate, Araria, whereby and whereunder the appeal has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sevika at Centre No. 82, Lalpur Tola, Majhua East, Block-Raniganj, District- Araria, on 19.10.1985. The petitioner and some other Sevikas of the nearby centres had made written complaint to the District Magistrate, Araria against the then Child Development Project Officer, Raniganj and on account of his grudge, the Child Development Project Officer, Raniganj, had conducted an inspection of the centre in question on 20.5.2009, whereafter a show cause notice dated 13.6.2009 was issued to the petitioner by the District Welfare Officer, Araria, alleging therein that no children were present at the centre in question & the centre was found closed on the date of inspection, which is a gross irregularity and misconduct under the ICDS guidelines. The petitioner had then submitted her reply on 29.06.2009, however, the District Welfare Officer, Araria, by an order dated 18.6.2009 i.e. prior to filing of the reply to show cause, had terminated her services. 3. The aforesaid order dated 18.6.2009 was challenged in appeal before the District Magistrate, Araria, however, the same was upheld by an order dated 22.12.2011, passed by the District Magistrate, Araria. The petitioner had then challenged the said order dated 18.6.2009, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria and the appellate order dated 22.12.2011 before this Court, by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 6890 of 2012 and a coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 03.05.2012, had set aside the appellate order dated 22.12.2011 and remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate, Araria, only for the limited purpose of granting an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations levelled against her by the covillagers regarding her failure to discharge her duties. The District Magistrate, Araria, has then by the impugned order dated 29.7.2013, rejected the appeal of the petitioner by observing therein that on the date of inspection i.e. on 20.05.2009 and on 12.6.2009, the centre in question was closed and the petitioner was missing, hence, the same being instances of gross negligence and misconduct, no interference is required in the order dated 18.6.2009, passed by the District Programme Officer, Araria. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce herein below the relevant portion of the Appellate order dated 29.07.2013: – ^^vihydÙkkZ ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk dk eq[; dFku gS fd fnukad 12-06-2009 dks vkaxuckM+h dsUæ [kqyk FkkA vkaxuckM+h dsUæ dk lapkyu fofèkor~ fd;k tk jgk FkkA fdlh Hkh inkfèkdkjh }kjk vkaxuckM+h dsUæ dk fnukad 12-06-2009 dks fujh{k.k ugha fd;k gSA fnukad 20-05-2009 dks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] jkuhxat }kjk bl vkaxuckM+h dsUæ dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k FkkA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh ds le{k muds lg;ksxh xkM+h pkyd Jh Ánhi ;kno }kjk muds ?kj esa ?kqldj vkaxuckM+h ls lacaèkh iaft;ksa dks ysdj pyk x;kA lacafèkr iaft;ksa dks ysus og ifj;kstuk xbZ rks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] jkuhxat lacafèkr iaft;ka nsus ls euk dj fn;kA rRi'pkr~ mUgksaus Fkkukè;{k] jkuhxat ds le{k ,d vkosnu lefiZr dh] ftl ij vU; lsfodk dk Hkh gLrk{kj gSA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] jkuhxat ds fujh{k.k Áfrosnu fnukad 20-05-2009 esa xfBr vkjksi ds lacaèk esa fo}ku ftyk dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds }kjk lsfodk ls fnukad 29-06-2009 rd Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax dh xbZA lsfodk us fnukad 29-06-2009 dks fo}ku ftyk dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj Li"Vhdj.k tokc nkf[ky fd;kA blh njE;ku vij lekgÙkkZ] vjfj;k ds }kjk fnukad 12-06-2009 dks dfFkr fujh{k.k Áfrosnu ¼571] fnukad 14-06-2009½ ds vkèkkj ij lsfodk ls fcuk dksbZ dkj.k&i`PNk iwNs fo}ku ftyk dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k us vius vkns'k Kkikad 467] fnukad 18-06-2009 ds }kjk p;u eqDr dj fn;kA fo}ku ftyk Áksxzke inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds mDr vkns'k ds fo:} nkf[ky bl vihy dks rRdkyhu fo}ku lekgÙkkZ] vjfj;k ds vkns'k fnukad 22-12-2011 ds }kjk vLohd`r dj fn;k x;kA fo}ku lekgÙkkZ] vjfj;k ds mDr vkns'k fnukad 22-12-2011 ds fo:} lsfodk ehuk nsoh }kjk lhŒMCywŒtsŒlhŒ la[;k&6890@2012 nkf[ky fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk us vius vkns'k fnukad 03-05-2012 ls vihyh; vkns'k fnukad 22-12-2011 dks fujLr djrs gq, ekeyk dks iqu% fjek.M fd;k x;k gSA vihydÙkkZ ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk dk vkxs dguk gS fd fo}ku vij lekgÙkkZ] vjfj;k ds Áfrosnu esa mfYyf[kr uo;qod xzkeh.k Jh jkt dqekj eaMy dk uke dk dksbZ Hkh O;fDr ml xkao esa ugha gSA bl ckr dh iqf"V gsrq vihydÙkkZ dh vksj ls Jh eukst dqekj Hkxr okMZ lnL; okMZ la[;k&03] iapk;r e>qvk ¼iwjc½ }kjk ÁnÙk Áek.k i= fnukad 27-05-2012 dks layXu fd;k x;k gSA mDr vkaxuokM+h dh lgkf;dk dh e`R;q 06&07 o"kZ igys gks pqdh gS] ftldk uke fujh{k.k Áfrosnu esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS] tks n'kkZrk gS fd vij lekgÙkkZ] vjfj;k }kjk mDr vkaxuckM+h dsUæ dk fujh{k.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA mudh ÁkFkZuk gS fd mUgsa iwoZor~ lsfodk ds in ij cgky djus dk vkns'k fn;k tk;A U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] jkuhxat dk dguk gS fd fnukad 12-06-2009 dks vij lekgÙkkZ] vjfj;k }kjk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dsUæ can ik;k x;k gSA og dsUæ fujh{k.k dh frfFk;ksa esa Ák;% can ik;k x;k gSA lhŒMCywŒtsŒlhŒ la[;k&6890@2012 ¼ehuk nsoh cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU;½ esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 03-05-2012 ds eq[; va'k dk vorj.k fuEufyf[kr gS%& “The appellate order dated 22.12.2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Magistrate only for the limited purpose of an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations levelled against her for failure to discharge duties, by co-villagers. This order shall not result in immediate to re instatement of the petitioner. That aspect will have to abide by the fresh decision that the District Magistrate may take.” vij lekgÙkkZ] vjfj;k ds fujh{k.k Áfrosnu ¼i=kad 571] fnukad 14-06-2009½ ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd fujh{k.k dh frfFk 12-06-2009 dks 11-00 cts iwokZg~u esa vkaxuckM+h dsUæ la[;k&82 ykyiqj Vksyk] iapk;r&e>qvk ¼iwjc½ ij lsfodk mifLFkr ugha FkhA fnukad 12-06-2009 dks f}rh; 'kqØokj VhŒ,pŒvkjŒ forj.k dk fnu FkkA VhŒ,pŒvkjŒ forj.k ds fnu dsUæ can ik;k tkuk ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa foÙkh; vfu;ferrk dk |ksrd gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa fo}ku ftyk Áksxzke inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds vkns'k Kkikad 467] fnukad 18-06-2009 esa gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ,oa vkèkkj Árhr ugha gksrk gSA vr,o vihy dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS rFkk okn dh dk;Zokgh lekIr dh tkrh gSA** 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit, filed in the present case that after the matter was remanded back to the District Magistrate, Araria, by a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03.05.2012, proper opportunity was granted to the petitioner and she was also afforded an opportunity of hearing, whereafter the impugned order dated 29.07.2013 has been passed, hence, the same does not suffer from any infirmity. It is also submitted that the centre in question was not only inspected on 20.05.2009, but also on the second Friday of the month i.e. on 12.06.2009, by the Additional District Magistrate, Araria, at 11:00 am., whereupon the centre was found closed and the Take Home Ration (THR) could not be distributed amongst the beneficiaries. In this regard, it has also been submitted that there is a specific direction of the State Government that if Take Home Ration (THR) is not distributed on second and forth Friday of every month, the concerned Sevika/Sahayika should be dismissed from service without asking for any show cause, hence, it is submitted that there is no infirmity in the order dated 18.06.2009, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment, rendered by the 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 hereinbelow: – “11. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment, rendered by the 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 hereinbelow: – “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. 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. 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.” 6. This Court would also refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681 (State of Karnataka and others vs. Ameerbi and Others), wherein it has been held that the post of Anganwadi workers are not statutory post and they have been created in terms of the Scheme as also the Anganwadi workers are not holders of civil post since they do not carry on any function of the State as 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, hence, the State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality, as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. 7. This Court now deems 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, 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.” 8. It would be apt to refer to yet another judgment rendered by the Ld. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 20 , paras no. 4 & 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 & 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.” 9. Again, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.01.2023 in C.W.J.C. no. 16533 of 2013 (Neema Prasad @ Smt. Neema Devi vs. The State of Bihar and others), paragraph no. 2 whereof is reproduced herein below: – “2. The petitioner assails the order of the District Magistrate rejecting the appeal of the petitioner with regard to the non-appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker. The post of Anganwadi Worker is not a cadre post and the same is governed by guidelines issued in that respect. It is not a post under the State services and a writ petition therefore would not be maintainable with regard to the same. The appeal being heard by the District Magistrate is also under the guidelines issued for the said purpose. Keeping in view thereto, no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction.” 10. Now coming back to the present case, this Court finds that firstly, on an inspection held on 20.05.2009, no children were found present at the centre in question and the centre was found closed, which is a gross irregularity and misconduct under the ICDS guidelines, hence a show cause notice dated 13.6.2009 was issued to the petitioner. Now coming back to the present case, this Court finds that firstly, on an inspection held on 20.05.2009, no children were found present at the centre in question and the centre was found closed, which is a gross irregularity and misconduct under the ICDS guidelines, hence a show cause notice dated 13.6.2009 was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, yet another inspection was conducted on 12.06.2009 but again the centre in question was found closed, which again is a gross irregularity and misconduct qua the petitioner herein, especially since the said day was a second Friday, a day earmarked for distribution of Take Home Ration (THR), however, on account of closure of the centre in question, Take Home Ration (THR) could not be distributed, warranting termination of the services of the petitioner, in view of the specific guideline of the State Government that if the Take Home Ration (THR) is not distributed on second and forth Friday of every month, the concerned Sevika / Sahayika should be dismissed from service without asking for any show cause. Thereafter, the District Welfare Officer, Araria, had passed the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from her services on 18.06.2009, which though along with the appellate order dated 22.12.2011 was challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 6890 of 2012, but the order dated 18.06.2009, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria, was not interfered with by this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 03.05.2012, had merely remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate, Araria, for reconsideration, whereafter adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner and in fact, she had also engaged an Advocate, who had advanced arguments and upon due consideration of the entire aspect of the matter and finding the petitioner to have engaged in gross irregularity and misconduct, the appeal has again been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.07.2013. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 18.06.2009, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria, though was challenged by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, but was not interfered with, hence, the same has become absolute & final, thus, the same cannot be interfered with at this juncture. 11. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 18.06.2009, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria, though was challenged by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, but was not interfered with, hence, the same has become absolute & final, thus, the same cannot be interfered with at this juncture. 11. Moreover, this Court finds that the requirement of principles of natural justice has been complied with and the impugned orders have been passed, after granting due opportunity to the petitioner to present her case, hence, no infirmity can be found in the impugned orders. 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. Having considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the reasons furnished by the petitioner and the cause shown are in fact, not convincing and she has miserably failed to provide help to the children of poor and downtrodden persons as per the Scheme. Thus, there is no infirmity/illegality in the impugned order dated 18.6.2009, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria, or in the order dated 29.07.2013, passed by the District Magistrate, Araria, in Aaganwari Appeal Case No. 4 of 2012-13. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.