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, terminating the engagement of the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Sewika as also for quashing the order dated 14.08.2013, passed by the Collector, Supaul i.e. the respondent no. 5, in Appeal case no. 24 of 2013 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner is that she was appointed as Anganwadi Sewika at Center code no. 46 situated at Dhatta Tola Basaha, Block-Pipra, District-Supaul, however, subsequently, an inspection was made by the District Programme Officer on 19.06.2012, whereupon she was served with a letter dated 24.07.2012, containing certain allegations and seeking her explanation, whereafter the petitioner is stated to have appeared before the respondent no. 6 and filed her detailed explanation, however, her services were terminated by the impugned order dated 27.08.2012, which was then challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector, Supaul, however, the same has also stood rejected by the impugned order dated 16.10.2012. The petitioner had then challenged the said order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul and the Appellate order dated 16.10.2012, by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 2727 of 2013, which was partly allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2013, inasmuch as the appellate order dated 16.10.2012, passed by the Collector, Supaul was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Supaul for passing a fresh order. Thereafter, the Collector, Supaul had considered the matter afresh and passed a reasoned and a speaking order dated 14.08.2013. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that merely on frivolous allegations, the services of the petitioner has been terminated, hence, the impugned order dated 27.08.2012 and 14.08.2013 are fit to be set aside. 4. Thereafter, the Collector, Supaul had considered the matter afresh and passed a reasoned and a speaking order dated 14.08.2013. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that merely on frivolous allegations, the services of the petitioner has been terminated, hence, the impugned order dated 27.08.2012 and 14.08.2013 are fit to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case, that upon inspection being made of the Center in question on 19.06.2012, several irregularities were found and only 10 children were present apart from inadequate meal having been prepared for feeding the children present there as also the standard of pre-school teaching was found to be very poor, hence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after consideration of the same, the District Programme Officer, Supaul by the impugned order dated 27.08.2012, had passed an order of removal of the petitioner from services, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector, Supaul, however, the same was also rejected by an order dated 16.10.2012, which in turn was challenged by filing of a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 2727 of 2013 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.02.2013, had quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter back to the Collector, Supaul for fresh consideration. It is further submitted that the Collector, Supaul by the impugned order dated 14.08.2013, after considering the written arguments submitted by the petitioner, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner by a reasoned and a speaking order upholding the order of removal of the petitioner from services. It is thus submitted that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted for removal of the petitioner from her services and only on account of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in running the Center in question, she has been removed from her services. 5. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. First of all, this Court would 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. 5. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. First of all, this Court would 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. 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 would next refer to a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sujata Kumari vs. the State of Bihar and others, reported in 2018 (2) BLJ 41 (PHC), paragraphs no. 9 and 10 whereof are reproduced herein below: – “9. The post of Anganwadi Sevika is not a civil post as envisaged under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The State acts as a nodal agency to implement the project sponsored by the World Bank and the Central Government for the benefit of all pregnant women and poor downtrodden of the society. The benefits are meant for those who are unfortunates in the matter of getting proper care during the pregnancy and those children who are deprived of the basic meal for their nourishment. An Anganwadi Sevika has a responsibility to give effect to the aims and objects of the scheme/project by serving the pregnant women and the downtrodden members of the society dispassionately and wholeheartedly. 10. In the present case, as it appears from the Inspection note (Annexure-2) a number of irregularities were found; a show cause was issued to the petitioner containing all such allegations which have been mentioned here-inabove. In response the petitioner submitted her reply, on perusal thereof the District Programme Officer was not satisfied with the reasons shown and, therefore, he has, upon analysis of the materials on the record, decided to disengage/remove the petitioner from her engagement as Anganwadi Sevika. The order has been passed after compliance with the principles of natural justice. Even at the appellate stage the petitioner has been heard. Nothing concrete could be found by the appellate authority to interfere with the order passed by the District Programme Officer. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order does not indicate reasons does not impress upon this Court because on perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-4, this Court is satisfied that the reasons shown by her are in fact not convincing and, if those reasons are not convincing, the District Programme Officer was within his power to pass the impugned order by recording his dissatisfaction. A judicial scrutiny of Annexure- 4 would show that in fact most of the allegations have been baldly denied. A judicial scrutiny of Annexure- 4 would show that in fact most of the allegations have been baldly denied. This is not the case of the petitioner that at any prior point of time she had disclosed to the authorities concerned about the difficulties in keeping the foodgrains in the Centre; if she has not apprised the authorities about her any difficulty in this regard, when an action is taken against her for not acting in terms of the guidelines meant for running the Anganwadi Centres it will not be open for the petitioner to take such a plea by way of defence; moreover, in the nature of the job which she is doing, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders.” 8. 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, 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. 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.” 9. This Court would next rely upon a judgment rendered in the case of Seema Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in (2015) SCC Online Pat. 7267, paragraphs no. 9 to 11 whereof, are reproduced herein below: – “9. As noted above, the Anganbari Sevika is not a government servant and has no protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India so as to envisage the concept of regular departmental proceeding. The petitioner was given a notice. She was informed about the allegation against her. She had filed her show-cause reply which was considered by the District Programme officer and when the order went against her, she had also been given adequate opportunity by the appellate authority who, in fact, had himself got the matter verified by referring the matter to the Bihar Sanskrit Board. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner when it is found that the petitioner had got appointment by producing a document in support of qualification which was found to be incorrect/forged. 11. Thus for the reasons indicated above, this application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.” 10. 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. 11. 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 othes), 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. “ 12. Now, coming back to the merits of the present case, this Court finds from a bare perusal of the writ petition that the petitioner has merely stated in paragraph no. 5 thereof that she had appeared before the respondent no. 6 and submitted a detailed explanation with regard to the allegations levelled against her, however, neither her explanation submitted before the respondent no. 5 thereof that she had appeared before the respondent no. 6 and submitted a detailed explanation with regard to the allegations levelled against her, however, neither her explanation submitted before the respondent no. 6 nor the details thereof have been mentioned in the writ petition, however, upon going through the impugned order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul, it would be apparent that the petitioner had stated in her explanation that she was not well since two days prior to the inspection, hence, she could not motivate the people of the locality to send their children to the Center in question, however, she would improve in future, nonetheless, the allegation regarding adequate meal having not been prepared for the children has not been refuted. 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. 13. 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. 13. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul, herein below: – ^^mDr dsUnz dk fujh{k.k vèkksgLrk{kjh }kjk fnukad 19-06-2012 dks 11%20 cts fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds le; dsUnz ij ek=k 10 cPps mifLFkr FksA Ldwy iwoZ f'k{kk dk Lrj Hkh vR;ar gh U;wu FkkA iks"kkgkj ds :i esa ek=k 1-00 fdñxzkñ pkoy dk jfl;ka cuk Fkk] ftls 10 cPps gh lekIr dj x;sA dsUnz ij ,d Hkh fd'kksjh mifLFkr ugha Fkh vkSj u gh muds fy, rS;kj iks"kkgkj 'ks"k FkkA fnukad 04-08-2012 dks lquokbZ esa lsfodk }kjk mi;qZDr ds lacaèk esa viuk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr fd;k x;kA Li"Vhdj.k esa lsfodk }kjk dgk x;k gS fd fujh{k.k ds nks fnu iwoZ ls eSa vLoLFk Fkh blfy, ifjHkze.k ugha djus ds dkj.k ,oa jkr esa lkaLÑfrd dk;ZØe ds dkj.k cPps ugha vk ldsA eSa foxr 08 o"kksZa ls fu"Bk] bZekunkjh] rFkk lkekftd Lo:i lg;ksx ls ykHkqd oxZ ds izfr tokcnsg jgus dh dksf'k'k dh gw¡A fujh{k.k ds le; dsUnz lapkyu dh fLFkfr] lsfodk dk Li"Vhdj.k ,oa fn;s x;s c;ku ds voyksduksijkar ;g ik;k x;k fd dsUnz ij fuèkkZfjr la[;k esa cPps vkrs gh ugha gS D;ksafd tks cPps dsUnz ij vkus ds vH;Lr gks pqdsa gS os fcuk cqyk, Hkh vkrs gSa] iqu% lgkf;dk }kjk Hkh cPps cqyk;s tk ldrs Fks ysfdu lsfodk }kjk ,slk ugha fd;k tk jgk Fkk] iks"kkgkj dh lkexzh dk xcu djus ds fy, gh tku cq>dj dsUnz ij de cPps vkus dh ifjikVh lsfodk }kjk yEcs le; ls tkjh Fkh ,slk dsUnz fujh{k.k ds le; Li"V izrhr gqvkA D;ksafd dksbZ dkj.k ugha fd cPps brus de la[;k esa mifLFkr FksA vr% blls Li"V gksrk gS fd lsfodk Jherh uhye dqekjh }kjk tkucq>dj 75% cPps + .03 fd'kksfj;ksa dks iks"kkgkj ykHk ls oafpr j[kk tk jgk gS vkSj ;g dk;Z vuojr tkjh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa Jherh uhye lkg dk mDr dsUnz ij lsfodk in ij cus jguk lesfdr cky fodkl lsok ;kstuk tSls dY;k.kdkjh dk;Z ds dk;kZUo;u esa ckèkk Lo:i gSA vr% funs'kd] vkbZñlhñMhñ,lñ fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kkad 956 fnukad 14-03-2012 ds dafMdk 02 esa fuxZr funsZ'k fd dsUnz lapkyu vofèk esa fdlh Hkh le; dsUnz ij cPpksa dh la[;k 15 ls de ik;h tkrh gS rks lsfodk dks p;ueqDr djus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk; ds vkyksd esa Jherh uhye dqekjh lsfodk dk dsUnz èkÙkk Vksyk dsUnz la[;k&46 ls p;u eqDr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] fiijk dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd foxr N% ekg dk 75% iks"kkgkj dh jkf'k ,oa fd'kksfj;ksa ds iks"kkgkj dh jkf'k dh olwyh djus dk dkjZokbZ djrs gq, cxy ds dsUnz ls Tag dj dsUnz lapkyu izkjEHk djkosa ,oa p;u dh Hkh dkjZokbZ vfoyac izkjEHk djsaA p;ueqDr lsfodk Jherh uhye lkg ikfjr p;ueqfDr vkns'k ds fo:¼ ftyk inkfèkdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa vkns'k fuxZr dh frfFk ls 30 fnuksa ds vanj vihy dj ldrh gSA** 14. 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 in the impugned order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul directing for removal of the petitioner from her services. 15. Yet another issue which arises for consideration is that in the earlier round of litigation i.e. in C.W.J.C. no. 2727 of 2013, though the petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul, but the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while passing the order dated 08.02.2013, had refrained from quashing the same and in fact, had only quashed the appellate order dated 16.10.2012 and remanded the matter back to the Collector, Supaul, thus the order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul had stood affirmed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, hence, there is no reason to interfere with the same, at this juncture, especially since the same has been found by this Court, hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, to be not suffering from any error, apart from the fact that the same has also stood validated by an order dated 14.08.2013, passed by the Collector, Supaul, on remand. 16. Now, coming to the order dated 14.08.2013, passed by the Collector, Supaul, which had been passed upon remand, no infirmity can be found inasmuch as the same is a reasoned and a speaking order, hence, the same also does not require any interference. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove as also considering the law laid down by this Court in a catena of Judgments, as aforesaid, the present writ petition is devoid of any merit, hence is dismissed.