Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Order dated 14.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika in respect of Anganwadi Center no. 103, Harijan Toli, Farna, Barahara, Bhojpur has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Appellate Order dated 09.04.2014, passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, whereby the Appeal has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Anganwadi Sewika at Anganwadi Center no. 103, Harijan Toli, Farna, Barahara, Bhojpur in the year 2004 and since then, she was functioning efficiently, to the full satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. On 28.06.2012, inspection was conducted by the I.C.D.S. Authorities at the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre and it was found that the Center was being run in an unsatisfactory manner, the petitioner was not present at the Centre, only 09 children were found instead of 40 children, whose attendance had been marked on other days, the register was not maintained and no care had been taken to keep the Centre clean, hence the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur had issued a show cause notice dated 31.07.2012, whereupon the petitioner had submitted her explanation on 11.08.2012, stating therein that since there was a marriage ceremony in the house of the petitioner, she had reached late at the Center on 28.06.2012, however, the Center was functioning. Nonetheless, the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur, by the impugned letter dated 14.08.2012, has cancelled the selection of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Sewika. The petitioner had then preferred an appeal bearing Appeal no. 44 of 2012-13, against the aforesaid order dated 14.08.2012, however, the same has been rejected by an order dated 09.04.2014. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been victimized and the factual aspect of the matter has not been considered, inasmuch as the area in question, where the aforesaid Center is situated, is most of the time water logged, hence it is impossible to keep the Center clean. 4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been victimized and the factual aspect of the matter has not been considered, inasmuch as the area in question, where the aforesaid Center is situated, is most of the time water logged, hence it is impossible to keep the Center clean. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted that an inspection of the Center in question was made by the I.C.D.S. team on 28.06.2012, on which date, only 09 children were present and the petitioner was missing, however, it appears that when she came to know about the inspection, she had arrived at the Center after some time, nonetheless, it was found that the Center was not being operated in a satisfactory manner, there was no cleanliness, register was not being maintained and though, 40 children were being shown to be present on other days, however, on the contrary only 09 children were present at the time of inspection. It is further submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2012, whereupon she had filed her reply admitting her lapses, hence the order of cancellation of her selection as an Anganwadi Sewika was passed by the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur at Ara vide order dated 14.08.2012, hence, the same does not suffer from any infirmity. It is next submitted that the petitioner had then preferred an appeal, wherein it had only been stated that selection of the petitioner has been cancelled without assigning any cogent reason and in a hasty manner, thus the order of the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah should be set aside. It is next submitted that the petitioner had then preferred an appeal, wherein it had only been stated that selection of the petitioner has been cancelled without assigning any cogent reason and in a hasty manner, thus the order of the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah should be set aside. Lastly, it is contended that the learned Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, by a reasoned and a speaking order dated 09.04.2014 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner, as would be apparent from the relevant portion of the said order dated 09.04.2014, which is reproduced hereinbelow: – ^^fuEu U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa mYys[k gS fd jkT;Lrjh; tkap ny }kjk fnukad 28-06-2012 dks vkaxuckM+h dsUæ la[;k 103] gfjtu Vksyh] Qjuk] cM+gjk dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dsUæ lapkyu esa vfu;ferrk ,oa iks"kkgkj jkf'k dh xcu dks ysdj lsfodk lfork jatu dks p;u eqDr djus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZA mDr vfu;ferrk ds fy, ftyk izksxzke inkfèkdkjh] Hkkstiqj }kjk vihykFkhZ lsfodk ls i=kad 1080] fnukad 31-07-2012 }kjk Li"Vhdj.k iwNrs gq, lacafèkr i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds i'pkr vihykFkhZ lsfodk 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 ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd vihykFkhZ vius dsUæ dk lapkyu fu;fer o lqpk: :i ls djrh gS ftlls lacafèkr ykHkqdksa ,oa xzkeh.kksa }kjk gLrk{kj;qDr Kkiu lk{; ds :i esa layXu fd;k x;k gSA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd foi{kh la[;k&2 us vihykFkhZ }kjk vius Li"Vhdj.k ds lkFk layXu lHkh lk{;ksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd fujh{k.k frfFk fnukad 28-06-2012 ds ,d fnu igys fnukad 27-06-2012 dks vihykFkhZ dh uun dh ckjkr vk;h Fkh vkSj fujh{k.k frfFk ds fnu fonkbZ gksus ds dkj.k vihykFkhZ vius dsUæ ij 11-00 cts x;h] vihykFkhZ us vius Li"Vhdj.k ds lkFk 'kknh dk dkMZ dh Nk;kÁfr lk{; ds :i esa layXu fd;k gSA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd vihykFkhZ lsfodk ds dsUæ ij igqapus ls igys vihykFkhZ ds dsUæ dh lgkf;dk dsUæ dk lapkyu dj jgh FkhA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us cryk;k fd fujh{k.k ds le; fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh }kjk ekaxs x;s lHkh iath dks fn[kk;k x;k] cPpksa dh mifLFkfr iath esa gktjh pkj fnu dk xyrh ls ugha cuk ik;h D;ksafd vihykFkhZ ds cPpksa us mifLFkfr iath dks xyrh ls vius cSx esa j[k fy;kA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us fujh{k.k frfFk dks vihykFkhZ ds dsUæ dh lgkf;dk dsUæ dk lapkyu 20 cPpksa ds lkFk lqpk: :i ls dj jgh Fkh tc fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh dsUæ ds fujh{k.k ds fy, vk;s rc fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh dks ns[kdj cPps bèkj mèkj Hkkxus yxs vkSj cgqr jksdus ij 09 ¼ukS½ cPps gh :dsA bl Ádkj vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk us foi{kh la[;k&2 }kjk vihykFkhZ ds fo:} ikfjr p;ueqfDr vkns'k dks fujLr djus dk vuqjksèk fd;kA lgk;d ljdkjh fo}ku vfèkoDrk us crk;k fd vihykFkhZ ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksi lgh gSA mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZ dks lquk ,oa vfHkys[kc} dkxtkrksa rFkk fuEu U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Árhr gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk fn;s x;s Li"Vhdj.k lgh Árhr ugha gksrk gSA vfHkys[kc} dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ ds dsUæ dh tk¡p ds nkSjku dsUæ ij vfu;ferrk] iks"kkgkj jkf'k ds xcu ,oa dsUæ lapkyu esa ykijokgh tSls xaHkhj vkjksi ik;s x;sA bl Ádkj ftyk Áksxzke inkfèkdkjh] Hkkstiqj us vihykFkhZ }kjk ÁLrqr Li"Vhdj.k ds lkFk layXu lHkh lk{;ksa ij fopkjksijkUr gh p;u eqfDr dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS tks fofèklEer gS ,oa blesa fdlh Ádkj dh gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gSA vr% vihykFkhZ ds vihy dks vLohd`r djrs gq, okn dh dkjZokbZ lekIr dh tkrh gS ,oa ftyk Áksxzke inkfèkdkjh] Hkkstiqj ds p;ueqfDr vkns'k Kkikad 1150 fnukad 14-08-2012 dks lEiq"V fd;k tkrk gSA** 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. 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.” 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. 7. 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, 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 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.” 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. 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 upon an inspection held on 28.06.2012 at the centre in question, very less number of children i.e only 9 children were found present, the petitioner was not present at the centre, the centre was being run in an unsatisfactory manner, no care had been taken to keep the centre clean and registers were not being maintained, which are instances of gross irregularity and misconduct under the ICDS guidelines, hence a show cause notice dated 31.07.2012 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, Bhojpur at Arrah, by an order dated 14.08.2012, had cancelled the selection of the petitioner as an Anganbari Sevika. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2012-13, however, the same has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 09.04.2014, 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. 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 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 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. 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 14.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur or in the order dated 09.04.2014, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2012-13. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.