JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing memo dated 02.03.2012 issued by the District Programme Officer, Purnea, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled. The petitioner has further sought quashing of the letter dated 03.04.2012 issued by the District Programme Officer, Purnea, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been stopped from performing her duties on the post of Anganwari Sevika as also for quashing the order dated 20.02.2013 passed in Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 86 of 2012 by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, whereby and whereunder the revision petition, preferred by the petitioner has stood dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was selected on the post of Anganwari Sevika vide letter dated 25.06.2007, whereupon she was discharging her duties to the full satisfaction of her superiors, nonetheless, on 21.10.2011, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner to file her reply as to why action be not taken against her for the irregularities committed at the centre where she is posted, whereupon, the petitioner had filed her show cause reply. The petitioner was again directed to file show cause reply vide notice dated 13.01.2012, whereupon the petitioner had again submitted her detailed show cause reply. It is submitted that the District Programme Officer, had then issued a show cause notice dated 16.02.2012 to the petitioner to submit her reply regarding the irregularities committed by her at the centre in question, whereupon the petitioner had filed a detailed show cause reply dated 29.02.2012, however, by the impugned order dated 02.03.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea, the petitioner has been disengaged from the post of Anganwari Sevika and a communication to the said effect was also sent to the petitioner by the impugned memo dated 03.04.2012, issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Banmankhi, Purnea. The petitioner had then filed a service appeal bearing Service Appeal No. 6120 of 2012, before the District Magistrate, Purnea on 25.04.2012, however, the same has also stood rejected vide order dated 06.10.2012, whereupon the petitioner had challenged the same by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 19978 of 2012 which was disposed off by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2012, granting liberty to the petitioner to file revision petition, whereupon the petitioner had preferred a revision petition bearing Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 86 of 2012, before the learned Court of Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, however, the same has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.02.2013. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that repeated show cause notices were given to the petitioner and the necessary guidelines have not been followed by the respondent authorities at the time of awarding the punishment of disengagement. It is also submitted that the entire action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also contrary to law. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case by the respondent no. 8, that the petitioner was selected as an Anganwari Sevika in the year 2007, whereafter she had completed her training and was working at Ashram Tola (Code No. 30), situated at Bishanpur Datt Gram Panchayat as an Anganwari Sevika. It is also submitted that on 20.10.2011 at 12:40 P.M., the Child Development Project Officer, Banmankhi along with the Lady Supervisor had inspected the aforesaid Anganwari Centre and had found the petitioner and only two children present there, however, the Sahayika was found absent and the food had also not been prepared, however, the petitioner was not punished and was left with a warning. Again on 12.01.2012, inspection was conducted, whereupon it was found that the petitioner was present there along with only six children, Sahayika was not present and other irregularities were also found. Again on 12.01.2012, inspection was conducted, whereupon it was found that the petitioner was present there along with only six children, Sahayika was not present and other irregularities were also found. Considering the fact that there was very poor presence of the children and other irregularities were also found at the Centre in question, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner vide Memo dated 13.01.2012, whereupon the petitioner had sought apology, while tendering an undertaking to ensure 100% presence of the children at the centre in question, thus, admitting her guilt, which in turn led to the Child Development Project Officer recommending for disengagement of the petitioner whereupon the District Programme Officer, Purnea, vide letter dated 16.02.2012, had again issued a show cause to the petitioner, whereupon the petitioner had submitted her reply, however, finding her reply to be unsatisfactory, the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 was passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea, whereafter the consequential order was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Banmankhi, Purnea vide impugned memo dated 03.04.2012. The petitioner had then preferred a service appeal bearing Service Appeal No. 6120 of 2012, before the learned District Magistrate, Purnea, however, the same was dismissed by a reasoned and a speaking order dated 06.10.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 19978 of 2012, challenging the appellate order dated 06.10.2012, however, a coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 30.10.2012 had disposed off the said writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to file revision petition, whereupon the petitioner had filed a revision petition bearing Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 86 of 2012 before the learned court of Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, however, the same has also stood dismissed by a reasoned and a speaking order dated 20.02.2013, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below:- 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that gross irregularities have been found at the centre in question qua the petitioner herein, not only on one occasion but on two occasions, which have also stood admitted by the petitioner herein, hence there is no question of taking any sympathetic view and moreover, there is no flaw in the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities in passing the order of disengagement of the petitioner herein as would be apparent from the sequence of events which have taken place in the present case. 6. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record from which it is apparent that the due process of law has been adhered to and ample opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to put forth her defence and only then the impugned order of disengagement dated 02.03.2012 has been passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea. In fact the Appellate order dated 06.10.2012 as also the revisional order dated 20.02.2013 also do not suffer from any infirmity especially in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any lacuna in the said orders much less them being unreasoned or non speaking orders. At this juncture it would be apt to refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari v. 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. 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.” 7. This Court further finds that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had only challenged the appellate order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Purnea, disposing off the appeal of the petitioner, vide order dated 06.10.2012, however, the order of disengagement dated 02.03.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea does not appear to have been challenged as is apparent from the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure-14 to the present writ petition), hence the petitioner is estopped from now raising a challenge to the original order of disengagement of the petitioner dated 02.03.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea. 8. 8. It would also be relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 833 (Sajjan Devi v. 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. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned herein above as also considering the fact that the requirement of principle of natural justice has been complied with, I do not find any infirmity with the procedure adopted by the respondents nor the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea, the appellate order dated 06.10.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea and the impugned order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 86 of 2012, suffer from any irregularity / illegality, hence the present writ petition stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit.