Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.12.2008, passed by the District Welfare Officer-cum-District Programme Officer, Araria, whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika has been cancelled as also the order dated 15.7.2014, passed by the Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, i.e. the Respondent No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that she was appointed as Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre No. 78, Gayas Tola under Basantpur Gram Panchayat, P.S. Araria, District-Araria. It is stated that the petitioner was working satisfactorily, however, unfortunately, on 11.12.2008, one infant child of the petitioner fell seriously ill, hence, she had to rush to Araria for treatment and when she was taking care of the child, at her home, on the next day i.e. on 12.12.2008, the District Magistrate, Araria, had inspected the center in question and then, a show cause dated 16.12.2008 was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that the center was closed, no children were found, no signboard was present in the center, no meal was distributed, Take Home Ration (THR) was not distributed and the petitioner along with the Sevika was missing from the center in question. The petitioner had then filed her reply on 26.12.2008, stating therein that she was absent on account of illness of her child, whereafter the District Welfare Officer, Araria, had passed the impugned order dated 26.12.2008, cancelling the selection of the petitioner. The petitioner had then challenged the same, by filing an appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2012-13, but the same was also dismissed by an order dated 29.7.2013, passed by the Collector, Araria. The petitioner had then challenged the same, by filing an appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2012-13, but the same was also dismissed by an order dated 29.7.2013, passed by the Collector, Araria. The petitioner had then filed a Miscellaneous (Service) Appeal No. 141 of 2013, before the competent authority, however, the same has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 15.7.2014, passed by the Respondent No. 2, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below: – ^^mDr p;ueqfDr vkns'k ds fo:) vkosfndk chch gyhek [kkrqu }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa lhñ MCywñ tsñlhñ la[;k& 1628@2014 nk;j fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds }kjk lhñ MCywñ tsñ lhñ la[;k&1628@2014 chch gyhek [kkrqu cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; eas fnukad 24-03-2014 dks ikfjr U;k;kns'k ds vkyksd esa vkbZñ lhñ Mhñ ,lñ funs'kky; ds i=kad vkbZlhMh,l@30025@87&2014@3344 fnuakd 12-06-2014 ,oa i=kad vkbZlhMh,l@30025@87&2014@3345 fnuakd 12-06-2014 ds }kjk oknh chch gyhek [kkrqu] p;ueqDr lsfodk] dsUnz&xkl Vksyk] dksM la[;k& 78] ifj;kstuk& vjfj;k] ftyk&vjfjk rFkk cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ¼vjfj;k½ dks lHkh dkxtkrksa ds lkFk fnukad 26-06-2014 dks funs'kky; Lrj ij lquokbZ gsrq mifLFkr gksus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA oknh dks foLr`r lquk x;kA ftyk inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds }kjk fnukad 12-12-2008 dks vk¡xuckM+h dsUnz&xkl Vksyk] dsUnz la[;k&78 dh tk¡p dh x;hA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds i=kad 157 fnukad 09-04-2012 ds }kjk mi lekgÙkkZ izHkkjh ftyk fofèk iz'kk[kk] vjfj;k dks izsf"kr fujh{k.k izfrosnu ds vuqlkj tk¡p ds le; vk¡xuckM+h dsUnz la[;k&78 can ik;k x;kA dsUnz ij lsfodk@lgkf;dk vuqifLFkr ik;h x;h] dsUnz ij cPpksa dh mifLFkfr 'kwU; ik;k x;k] dsUnz ij cksMZ Vaxk gqvk ugha ik;k x;k rFkk iks"kkgkj dk forj.k ugha gksrk ik;k x;kA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds }kjk cryk;k x;k fd fnukad 12-12-2008 dks vkosfndk chch gyhek [kkrqu }kjk viuk vodk'k vkosnu i= dk;kZy; eas ugha fn;k x;k FkkA vkosfndk chch gyhek [kkrqu }kjk fnukad 13-12-2008 dks Hkh viuk vodk'k vkosnu ifj;kstuk dk;kZy; esa ugha fn;k x;k FkkA funs'kky; Lrj ij fnukad 26-06-2014 dks gqbZ lquokbZ ds le; Hkh vihykFkhZ chch gyhek [kkrqu }kjk larks"ktud Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;kA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd chch gyhek [kkrwu] p;ueqDr lsfodk] dsUnz&xkl Vksyk] dksM la[;k&78] ifj;kstuk&vjfjk }kjk dsUnz lapkyu ,oa iks"kkgkj forj.k esa vfu;ferrk cjrh x;h gSA vr% chch gyhek [kkrqu ds p;u eqfDr vkns'k ls lacafèkr ftyk dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh≶&ftyk izksxzke inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds Kkikad 1131 fnukad 31-12-2008 dks ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA** 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders dated 26.12.2008 and 15.07.2014 are arbitrary, hence, are fit to be set aside. It is also submitted that the child of the petitioner was ill, hence, the default, as aforesaid, had taken place, thus, a sympathetic view be taken. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted that a bare perusal of the reply of the petitioner, annexed as Annexure-4 to the present writ petition, to the show cause issued to her, would show that most of the allegations have not been denied by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the guidelines which govern the services of the Anganbari Sevika, provides that in case of even a single dereliction in duty, the services of such Anganbari Sevika is required to be dispensed with, hence there is no ambiguity in termination of the services of the petitioner, who is guilty of gross dereliction in duties. The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to the guidelines issued by the Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna vide letters dated 20.06.2012 and 14.03.2012, relevant portion whereof, are reproduced herein below: – ^^dafMdk ¼2½ dks fuEu izdkj iढ+k tk; (Letter dt . 20.06.2012):- dsUnz lapkyu dh fuèkkZfjr vofèk esa fdlh Hkh le; vkaxuckM+h dsUnz ij iathÑr cPpksa dh la[;k fcuk i;kZIr dkj.k ds pkSng ;k pkSng ls de ik;h tkrh gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ml dsUnz dh lsfodk dks p;ueqDr djus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;A Letter dt. 14.03.2012 tk¡p ds Øe esa fdlh dsUnz ij uke iV~V rFkk ykHkqdksa dks fn;s tkus okyh lkexzh dh ek=k dk Prominent Display ;fn ugha ik;k tkrk gS rks blds fy, lsfodk dks p;ueqDr djus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;A** 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 & Ors., reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 20 , paragraphs 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 an inspection of the centre in question was held on 12.12.2008 and the following irregularities were found, which indicate gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner: – (i) The centre was found closed. (ii) No Children were present at the centre. (iii) No signboard was hanging at the centre. (iv) No meal had been distributed. (v) Take Home Ration (THR) was not being distributed. (vi) Neither the Anganbari Sevika nor the Anganbari Sahayika were present at the centre in question. 11. (ii) No Children were present at the centre. (iii) No signboard was hanging at the centre. (iv) No meal had been distributed. (v) Take Home Ration (THR) was not being distributed. (vi) Neither the Anganbari Sevika nor the Anganbari Sahayika were present at the centre in question. 11. A show cause notice dated 16.12.2008 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had filed her reply, virtually admitting her guilt, nonetheless, she has stated that on account of her being engaged in treatment for her child, she had not come to the center in question, whereafter the District Welfare Officer, Araria, had passed an order dated 26.12.2008, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner, by filing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2012-13, however, the same was also dismissed by the District Magistrate, Araria, by an order dated 29.07.2013, nonetheless, the said order dated 29.07.2013 has not been challenged in the present proceedings, hence, this Court is of the view that in case, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the appellate order dated 29.07.2013, there is no question of any interference in the present case. Nevertheless, this Court finds that the petitioner had filed a Miscellaneous (Service) Appeal Case No. 141 of 2013, which has been considered in accordance with law and a reasoned and a speaking order dated 15.07.2014 has been passed by the Respondent No. 2, dismissing the same. 12. This Court further 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. 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 26.12.2008, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria or in the order dated 29.07.2013, passed by the District Magistrate, Araria in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2012-13 or for that matter in the Order dated 15.7.2014, passed by the Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.