Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.07.2014, passed in Case No.58 of 2014, by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, i.e. the respondent no.2, herein, whereby and whereunder the appeal, filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the original order dated 20.03.2014, passed by the District Program Officer, Patna i.e. the respondent no.3, whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika has been terminated. 2. The brief facts of the petitioner, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Anganwari Sevika vide office order dated 15.06.1983, issued by the Child Development Programme Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna, whereafter she had joined her services on 27.06.1983, as Anganwari Sevika in ward no.25/29, Patna i.e. in Anganwari Center Hazari Mohalla Code No.26. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequently, the services of the petitioner was transferred at Gaighat where she had submitted her joining in the year 1990. It is also stated that on 31.07.2013, the Child Development Project Officer had made a surprise inspection at 12:40 P.M. and some irregularities were found, whereafter the District Programme Officer, Patna had sought explanation from the petitioner vide letter dated 22.10.2013, to which the petitioner had submitted her explanation on 28.10.2013 and then the impugned order dated 20.03.2014 was passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna, terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Anganwari Sevika. The petitioner had then filed an appeal bearing Anganwari Appeal No.58 of 2014, however, the same has been rejected by an order dated 09.07.2014, passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the time table, annexed to the present writ petition as annexure-4, the time prescribed for running an Anganwari Center in between the period April to October is upto 12:30 P.M., however, the inspection was made at 12:40 P.M., thus no children were present in the said center and the petitioner was not present there, hence it is submitted that the very basis for initiating the aforesaid proceedings and terminating the services of the petitioner is itself faulty and misconceived, hence the impugned orders dated 20.03.2014 and 09.07.2014 are fit to be set aside. 5. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- State has supported the impugned orders dated 20.03.2014 and 09.07.2014 and has submitted that gross irregularities have been committed by the petitioner in running the Centre in question. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the time table annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition would show that the timing prescribed for operating the Anganwadi Centre, in the month of April to October, is 9 AM to 1 PM, hence it is false on the part of the petitioner to contend that the timing of the Anganwadi Centre is only upto 12:30 PM. It is also submitted that several irregularities were found during the course of inspection held at the center in question on 31.07.2013, inasmuch as neither any child was present at the center nor meal had been prepared nor there was ample empty space for the children to move around nor the petitioner was present at the center, nor registers were maintained in the prescribed format, nor the THR for the month of July, 2013 had been distributed nor children day was being celebrated and moreover, social audit was also not being done. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that in view of the aforesaid irregularities, a show cause notice dated 22.10.2013, was issued to the petitioner and after obtaining her reply, the District Programme Officer, Patna by a reasoned and a speaking order dated 20.03.2014, had terminated the services of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Sevika. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that in view of the aforesaid irregularities, a show cause notice dated 22.10.2013, was issued to the petitioner and after obtaining her reply, the District Programme Officer, Patna by a reasoned and a speaking order dated 20.03.2014, had terminated the services of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Sevika. The petitioner had then filed an appeal, however, the same has also stood dismissed by a well reasoned and a speaking order dated 09.07.2014, relevant portion whereof is produced hereinbelow: – ve`rk flag] cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] [kq'k:iqj }kjk fnukad 31-07-2013 dks cky iks"kkgkj tk¡p gsrq ;q) Lrj ij iVuk lnj&3 ifj;kstuk vUrxZr fofHkUu vk¡xuckM+h dsUnzksa dh tk¡p dh xbZ ftlesa vkaxuckM+h dsUnz la[;k 151] dsUnz ?k?kk ?kkV ds fujh{k.k ds nkSjku iathd`r cPpksa dh la[;k 'kwU; Fkh] iks"kkgkj ugha cu ik;k] dsUnz LFky dkQh NksVk gS] dsUnz ij vfrfjDr leku j[kk ik;k x;k] dsUnz ij lsfodk rFkk lgkf;dk vuqifLFkr ikbZ xbZ] cqykus ij lsfodk FkksM+h nsj ls vkbZ] tqykbZ 2013 dk Vh-,p-vkj- Hkh bl dsUnz ij ugha ck¡Vk x;k gS] xzksFk pkVZ iath rFkk Vh-,p-vkj- iath ugha miyCèk djk;k x;k] dksbZ iath laèkkfjr ugha ik;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ik;h x;h mDr vfu;ferrk ds fy;s ftyk izksxzke inkfèkdkjh] iVuk ds Kkikad 2698 fnukad 22-10-2013 }kjk vihykFkhZ lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk ls Li"Vhdj.k iwNrs gq, lacafèkr i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds i'pkr vihykFkhZ lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk dks p;ueqDr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA mDr vfu;ferrk ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds lacaèk esa vihykFkhZ lsfodk ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd fuEu U;k;ky; dk vkns'k Kkikad la[;k 29 U;kñ fnukad 20-03-2014 vihykFkhZ dks fnukad 22-04-2014 dks miyCèk djk;k x;kA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh }kjk dsUnz can gksus ,oa iks"kkgkj ugha cuus lacaèkh yxk;s x;s vkjksi xyr o cscqfu;kn gS D;ksafd dsUnz lapkyu dk le; 9-00 cts lqcg ls ysdj nksigj 1-00 cts rd dk Fkk vkSj tc fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh dsUnz fujh{k.k gsrq dsUnz ij vk;h rc dsUnz lapkyu dk le; lekIr gks pqdk Fkk vkSj vihykFkhZ dsUnz can dj tk pqdh FkhA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd fujh{k.k frfFk fnukad 31-07-2013 dks dsUnz ij 20 cPps mifLFkr Fks ,oa iks"kkgkj esa f[kpM+h cuk Fkk] ftlls lacafèkr ykHkwd oxZ dk gLrk{kj;qDr Kkiu lk{; ds :i esa layXu fd;k x;k gSA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd foHkkxh; ekxZnf'kZdk ds i=kad 956 fnukad 14-03-2012 ds vkyksd esa fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh dks fujh{k.k ds le; de ls de rhu ykHkwdksa dk c;ku ysuk vfuok;Z gS] ysfdu fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh }kjk ,slk ugha fd;k x;kA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd fujh{k.k frfFk fnukad 31-07-2013 dks fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh }kjk fd;s x;s ;q}Lrjh; tk¡p esa foHkkxh; i=kad 1805 fnukad 21-07-2011 dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd fnukad 17-04-2013] 06-08-2013] 19-06-2013 ,oa 24-05-2013 dks efgyk i;Zosf{kdk }kjk fd;s x;s fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dsUnz can gksus dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k tks xyr o fujkèkkj gS] vxj fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dsUnz can ik;k tkrk rks vihykFkhZ ls Li"Vhdj.k iwNk tkrk tcfd ,slk ugha fd;k x;k ftlls Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ ds mij yxk;s x;s vkjksi xyr gSA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd Vh-,p-vkj- forj.k ls lacafèkr yxk;s x;s vkjksi Hkh xyr gS D;ksafd Vh-,p-vkj- forj.k ls lacafèkr lk{; layXu fd;k x;k gS vkSj fuxjkuh lfefr dh vè;{k iwue nsoh] lnL; xqfM+;k nsoh ds ns[k&js[k esa ekg tqykbZ 2013 esa Vh-,p-vkj- forj.k fd;k x;kA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd fnukad 31-07-2013 dh tk¡p ds vkyksd esa vU; vkjksi tksM+k x;k ftudk dksbZ vkèkkj ugha gS bl izdkj fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr p;ueqfDr vkns'k fofèkekU; ugha gSA lgk;d ljdkjh fo}ku vfèkoDrk us crk;k fd vihykFkhZ ds fo:) yxk;s x;s fopkj.kh; ugha gSA mHk; i{kksa ds rdks± dks lquk ,oa vfHkys[kc) dkxtkrksa rFkk fuEu U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k dk Hkh voyksdu fd;kA vfHkys[kc) dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ls izrhr gksrk gS fd ckj&ckj vihykFkhZ ds dsUnz ds fujh{k.k ds nkSjku vihykFkhZ }kjk dsUnz lapkyu esa vfu;ferrk ikbZ xbZ ftlls Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ lsfodk banq nsoh vius dsUnz dk lapkyu fu;fer o lqpk: :i ls ugha djrh gS tks ykijokgh dk |ksrd gSA vr% mi;qZDr of.kZr rF;ksa ,oa vfHkys[kc) dkxtkrksa ds voyksduksijkUr vihykFkhZ lsfodk ds vihy dks vLohd`r djrs gq, ftyk izksxzke inkfèkdkjh] iVuk }kjk ikfjr p;ueqfDr vkns'k Kkikad la[;k 29 U;kñ fnukad 20-03-2014 dks laiq"V fd;k tkrk gSA 7. 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.” 8. 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. 9. 9. At this juncture, this Court would refer to yet another 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 (PHC)], 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 over emphasized 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.” 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 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.” 12. Now, coming back to the present case, this Court finds that inspection was conducted on 31.07.2013, at a time which was within the working/functioning hours of the Anganwadi Center in question and the following irregularities were found, which are instances of gross irregularity and misconduct under the ICDS guidelines: – (i) No child was present. (ii) Meal had not been prepared. (iii) The center was small and lot of additional articles had been kept there. (iv) The petitioner was found absent. (v) THR for the month of July, 2013 had not been distributed and its register had also not been produced. (vi) No register, as required to be maintained in the prescribed format, was found. (vii) Children day was not being celebrated. (iv) The petitioner was found absent. (v) THR for the month of July, 2013 had not been distributed and its register had also not been produced. (vi) No register, as required to be maintained in the prescribed format, was found. (vii) Children day was not being celebrated. (viii) Social Audit was not being carried out. 13. In view of the aforesaid irregularities detected during the course of the inspection held on 31.07.2013 at the centre in question, a show cause notice dated 22.10.2013 was issued to the petitioner, which was though replied by the petitioner but most of the irregularities found during the course of inspection were not denied and only lame excuses were pleaded, whereupon the District Programme Officer, Patna, by an order dated 20.03.2014, had cancelled the selection of the petitioner as an Anganbari Sevika. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 58 of 2014, however, the same has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 09.07.2014, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, which is a just, legal, reasoned and a speaking order, hence, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 14. 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 of presenting 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 20.03.2014, passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna, or in the order dated 09.07.2014, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 58 of 2014. 15. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.