Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dt. 30.4.2013, passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna in Case No. 238 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sahayika has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Appellate order dated 5.10.2013, passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna in Appeal No. 34 of 2013-14, whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Sahayika, vide letter dated 31.05.2007 at Anganbari Centre, Saupha Road, Code No. 129. A surprise inspection is stated to have been conducted by the State level inquiry Squad on 14.02.2013 at the center in question and several irregularities were found inasmuch as only 4 children were present, the meal had been prepared in less quantity, the petitioner was not coming to the center and the Take home ration etc. were not being distributed as per the guidelines. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 18.04.2013 was issued to the petitioner by the District Programme Officer, Patna, and upon granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, he had passed an order dated 30.4.2013, cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Sahayika. were not being distributed as per the guidelines. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 18.04.2013 was issued to the petitioner by the District Programme Officer, Patna, and upon granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, he had passed an order dated 30.4.2013, cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Sahayika. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce hereinbelow the relevant portion of the order dated 30.4.2013: – ^^lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk mifLFkrA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh mifLFkr gSaA lsfodk us viuk fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k lefiZr fd;k gSA lsfodk dk dFku gS fd bl dsUæ dh lgkf;dk fu;fer :i ls dsUæ ij ugha vkrh gS vkSj viuk dk;Z ugha djrh gSA lsfodk dks vi'kCn dgrh gSA dsUæ ij cPpksa dks ugha jgus nsrh gSA eSa Lo;a cPpksa dks cqykdj ykrh gwa ysfdu lgkf;dk lHkh cPpksa dks Hkxk nsrh gSA lgkf;dk us mifLFkfr iath Hkh QkM+ nh gSA pwafd lgkf;dk iaft;ksa dks QkM+ nsrh gS blfy, eSa iaft;ka ugha j[k jgh FkhA ysfdu efgyk i;Zosf{kdk ds dgus ij eSaus mifLFkfr iath lgkf;dk dks ns nhA tc lgkf;dk ls ekaxh rks mlus dgk eSa iath ugha nwaxhA vc esjk iath gSA bldh lwpuk eSaus efgyk i;Zosf{kdk dk vkosnu }kjk fn;k rks mUgksaus vkosnu ugha fy;kA lgkf;dk ds fo"k; esa cky fodkl ifj;kstuk dk;kZy; esa vkosnu fn;k x;k gSA fnukad 30-01-2013 dks dsUæ ij pksjh gksus ds dkj.k dsUæ [kqyk Fkk ftlds dkj.k cPpksa dks dsUæ ij j[kus esa ijs'kkuh gks jgh FkhA iks"kkgkj cukus ds Øe esa cPps Hkkx jgs Fks vkSj ml fnu ljLorh iwtk gksus ds dkj.k dqN cPps ewfrZ ns[kus Hkkx x, FksA 1 cts dk le; gksus ds dkj.k dqN cPps gkFk&eqag èkksus x, Fks] blh dkj.k ml le; dsUæ ij cPps de FksA esjh cgu dh 'kknh ds dkj.k eSa fnukad 08-02-2013 ls 13-02-2013 rd NqV~Vh esa FkhA eSaus dsUæ ij 6 fnuksa ds iks"kkgkj dh lkexzh dsUæ ij j[k dj xbZ FkhA ykHkkfUorksa dk gLRkk{kj;qDr vkosnu Hkh layXu fd;k x;k gSA lgkf;dk vius Li"Vhdj.k esa dgrh gS fd eq>s gkFk esa nnZ gksus ds dkj.k eSa nks ?kaVk ds fy, MkWDVj ls bZykt djkus xbZ Fkh] mldk Áek.k i= layXu gSA eSa Áfrfnu dsUæ ij vkrh gwa vkSj dk;Z lqpk: :i ls djrh gwaA lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk ds Li"Vhdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA pwafd fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh }kjk Áfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd dsUæ ij ek=k 04 cPps FksA VhŒ,pŒvkjŒ dh ek=k de ckaVh tkrh gSA lgkf;dk fcuk vius fu;a=h inkfèkdkjh ds vuqefr ds vuqifLFkr gSA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk dks dsUæ lapkyu esa dksbZ :fp ugha gSA vr% jkT; Lrjh; Vhe }kjk Áfrosfnr vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa iVuk lnj&1 ifj;kstuk ds varxZr vkaxuckM+h dsUæ la[;k&129 dh lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk dks p;ueqDr fd;k tkrk gSA** 3. The petitioner had then challenged the aforesaid order dated 30.4.2013, by filing an appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 34 of 2013-14, before the learned Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, however, the appeal was also rejected, by a reasoned and a speaking order dated 05.10.2013. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working efficiently, but on the alleged date of inspection, she had gone to the Doctor since she was ill, hence, a sympathetic view be taken. 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 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, 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.” 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. 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.” 8. 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. 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 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 merits of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has admitted her guilt and moreover, gross irregularities have been found at the time, the inspection was conducted at the center in question, inasmuch as only 4 children were present, the meal had been prepared in less quantity, the petitioner was not coming to the center and the Take home ration etc. were not being distributed as per the guidelines, which are instances of gross misconduct, as mentioned in the guidelines, issued by the ICDS. 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, thus, I do not find any illegality, either in the order 30.4.2013, passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna, or in the order dated 5.10.2013, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 34 of 2013-14. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned herein above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition, hence the same stands dismissed.