Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna, whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika has been terminated as also the order dated 26.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2013 whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that in the year 1997 the petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sevika for Bhatgaon West Centre Panchayat, Barh, Patna, whereupon she had joined her services on 10.12.1997 and was working punctually, however, all of a sudden in the month of July, 2012 the petitioner was served with a notice dated 24.07.2012 asking her to submit her explanation, whereupon the impugned order dated 05.11.2012 was passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna, against which the petitioner had filed an appeal, however, the same has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.05.2014, relevant portion whereof is being reproduced herein below: – ^^fuEu U;k;ky; ds vkns'k Kkikad vkns'k Kkikad 318 fnukad 10-01-2013 esa mYysf[kr gS fd fnuakd 16-07-2012 dks 9%30 cts vkaxuckM+h dsUnz HksVkxk¡o iañ Hkkx] dksM la[;k 99 dk vkSpd fujh{k.k js.kq dqekjh] efgyk i;Zosf{kdk }kjk fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dsUnz ij ik;k x;k fd lkekftd vads{k.k ugha fd;k x;k] lgkf;dk fcuk vkosnu fn;s vuqifLFkr Fkh] dsUnz ij dksbZ iath ugha Fkh] iks"kkgkj forj.k dk HkaMkj.k@iSdsfVax ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] lkekU; Vh-,p-vkj- ,oa lcyk Vh-,p-vkj- dk forj.k de ek=k esa fd;k x;k Fkk] cpiu fnol ,oa lkekftd vads{k.k ugha fd;k x;k FkkA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ik;h x;h mDr vfu;ferrk ds fy;s ftyk izksxzke inkfèkdkjh iVuk ds i=kad 1576 fnukad 24-07-2012 }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 fo}ku lgk;d ljdkjh vfèkoDrk }kjk vihykFkhZ ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi fopkj.kh; ugha gSaA vihykFkhZ vuqifLFkr] vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk mifLFkr ,oa lgk;d ljdkjh fo}ku vfèkoDrk mifLFkrA mHk; i{k ds rdZ ,oa vfHkys[kc) dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ls izrhr gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk lsfodk }kjk vius dsUnz dk lapkyu fu;fer :i ls ugha fd;k tkrk gS lkFk gh vihykFkhZ }kjk vius mij yxs vkjksiksa ds cpko esa dksbZ Bksl lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k ftlls Li"V gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ dks dsUnz lapkyu esa dksbZ :fp ugha gSA bl izdkj fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr p;ueqfDr vkns'k U;k;laxr gS ,oa blesa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gSA vr% mi;qZDr of.kZr rF;ksa esa vihykFkhZ ds vihy dks vLohd`r djrs gq, ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] iVuk ds 318 fnukad 10-01-2013 dks laiq"V fd;k tkrk gSA** 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been afforded adequate opportunity of hearing, she has been working diligently since past 15 years and the District Programme Officer, Patna has acted merely on the report of the supervisor who had inspected the Centre on 16.07.2012 and had found that neither the relevant register were available nor the stock of the meals was found nor social audit is being conducted, apart from the fact that low quantity of THR was found to have been distributed and children day was not being celebrated, however, without any conclusive evidence. 4. The Ld. counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that a bare perusal of the reply of the petitioner to the show cause issued by the District Programme Officer, Patna, annexed as Annexure-2 to the present writ petition would show that most of the allegations have not been denied by the petitioner, however, she has made a lame excuse about the timing of the conduct of the inspection. It is further submitted that the guidelines which govern the services of 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 terminating the services of the petitioner, who is guilty of committing serious dereliction in duties. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, it would be relevant to state that the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, hence in view of the nature of engagement of an Anganbari Sevika, in cases of termination of services, reinstatement is not appropriate and in such cases an aggrieved Anganbari Sevika should approach the Civil Court for damages. In this regard, 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. 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 , paras no. 4 & 5 whereof are reproduced herein below: – “4. 7. 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 , paras 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. 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.” 8. This Court 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. 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.” 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 nonappointment 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 16.07.2012 and it was found that neither the relevant registers were available nor the stock of meals was found nor social audit was being conducted, apart from the fact that low quantity of THR was found to have been distributed and children day was not being celebrated, hence a show cause notice dated 24.07.2012 was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the District Programme Officer, by the impugned order dated 05.11.2012, had found the petitioner to have engaged in dereliction of duties, hence had terminated her services. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2013, which was also considered at length and has been rejected by a reasoned and a speaking order dated 26.05.2014. 11. 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 ample opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her defense, before her services have been terminated, apart from the fact that even the appellate authority has come to a conclusion that the petitioner, who was posted as Anganwari Sevika at the center in question was not running the center in question in a regular and systematic manner, hence I do not find any infirmity either in the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna or in the order dated 26.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2013. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.