Order : Hirdesh, J. 1. The instant intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 20-01-2025 passed by learned writ Court in Writ Petition No. 7751 of 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant-petitioner therein has been dismissed. 2. It is contended on behalf of appellant that in pursuance of appointment order dated 20-10-2009, appellant was initially appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Village Amrod Baddu and vide order dated 29-10-2015, the services of appellant were terminated on the basis of various complaints on CM helpline without affording any opportunity of hearing or without conducting any enquiry. Relying on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Seema vs. State of MP and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online MP 5887 and State of MP and Others vs. Smt. Nirmala Rawat, decided on 8th of April, 2022 in Writ Appeal No. 742 of 2020, it is further contended that as per Rule/Policy framed by MP Government, Department of Women and Child Development, dated 10th of July, 2007, if Anganwadi Worker is found negligent in discharging her duties and responsibilities, then the Project Officer of Women and Child Development may give an opportunity of hearing to Anganwadi Worker and if she is found guilty in the enquiry/investigation, she may be removed/terminated from the post. Thus, there is clear violation of principle of natural justice as well as fundamental and statutory rights of appellant. The learned Single Judge did not consider the said aspect, ignoring the Policy/Rule and dismissed the writ petition of appellant in the light of the judgment passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Rajput Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 28th of July, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 847 of 2022 . Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for State opposed the contentions of appellant. It is submitted that on the basis of various complaints made by complainants/villagers on CM Helpline, at the time of inspection, Anganwadi Centre run by appellant was found closed. Various irregularities were found in discharge of duties by appellant. Despite giving various warnings to appellant and giving adequate opportunities, she did not improve her work. It is submitted that on the basis of various complaints made by complainants/villagers on CM Helpline, at the time of inspection, Anganwadi Centre run by appellant was found closed. Various irregularities were found in discharge of duties by appellant. Despite giving various warnings to appellant and giving adequate opportunities, she did not improve her work. So far as contention of appellant that Anganwadi Centre has been shifted to another place because of condition of Anganwadi Centre was not good is concerned, neither any record was maintained by her properly nor any information was furnished in this regard to any authority or Project Officer. Appointment of appellant has been made on temporary basis and a detailed enquiry was not required. As per Para-7 of appointment order dated 20-10-2009, the appointment of Anganwadi Worker can be terminated without giving any notice if her work and behaviour is not found satisfactory or if given instructions are violated or any irregularity is found. Even otherwise, appellant has not availed any remedy of appeal before the Collector under the administrative instructions and guidelines issued from time to time. A show-cause notice was issued on 26-09-2014 (Annexure R-1 therein) with a direction to the appellant to present in the Office within three days in enquiry proceedings and submit her reply as to why action for removal her from service be not taken and a last warning was also given on 03-10-2015 in regard to closure of Anganwadi Centre so that the beneficiaries are deprived of getting benefits from Anganwadi Centre run by appellant, but appellant did not turn up. Therefore, the Project Officer had left no other option, but to pass an order of termination. which is just and proper. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto. 5. So far as the contention of appellant that there is clear violation of principle of natural justice as well as fundamental and statutory rights of the appellant is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 2 SCC 779 held that principle of Audi Alteram Partem has its own sanctity but the said principle of natural justice is not always put in straitjacket formula. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 2 SCC 779 held that principle of Audi Alteram Partem has its own sanctity but the said principle of natural justice is not always put in straitjacket formula. That apart, a person or an authority must have a legal right or right in law to defend or assail. Natural justice is not an unruly horse. Its applicability has to be adjudged regard being had to the effect and impact of the order and the person who claims to be affected and that is where the concept of necessary party becomes significant. This aspect has also been taken care of by Division Bench of this Court {See: Vikas Gupta Vs. Smt. Meera Singh and others, 2007(2) EFR 46}. 6. The concept of principle of Natural Justice or audi alteram partem doctrine although is required to be complied with but at the same time it has some exceptions. In catena of judgments including the judgments rendered in A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Vs. Pindiga Sridhar, (2007) 13 SCC 352 , Haryana Financial Corpn. Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31 , State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Senger, (2009) 13 SCC 600 , Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 11 SCC 278 , Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement, (2010) 13 SCC 255 and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors, (2015) 8 SCC 519 , all discussed in detail on the different facets of said doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem, Principle of Natural Justice/Opportunity of Hearing quotient and discussed the exceptions also in detail. 7. In the case of Natwar Singh (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed as under:- “26. Even in the application of the doctrine of fair play there must be real flexibility. There must also have been caused some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth. Can the Courts supplement the statutory procedures with requirements over and above those specified? The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth. Can the Courts supplement the statutory procedures with requirements over and above those specified? In order to ensure a fair hearing, Courts can insist and require additional steps as long as such steps would not frustrate the apparent purpose of the legislation.” 27. In Lloyd Vs. McMahon, Lord Bridge observed: (AC pp. 702 H-703 B) "My Lords, the so-called rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone. To use the phrase which better expresses the underlying concept, what the requirements of fairness demand when any body, domestic, administrative or judicial, has to make a decision which will affect the rights of individuals depends on the character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory or other framework in which it operates. In particular, it is well- established that when a statute has conferred on any body the power to make decisions affecting individuals, the courts will not only require the procedure prescribed by the statute to be followed, but will readily imply so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural safeguards as will ensure the attainment of fairness". 28. As Lord Reid said in Wiseman Vs. Boardman: (AC p.308C) "….For a long time the courts have, without objection from Parliament, supplemented procedure laid down in legislation where they have found that to be necessary for this purpose..." 29. It is thus clear that the extent of applicability of principles of natural justice depends upon the nature of inquiry, the consequences that may visit a person after such inquiry from out of the decision pursuant to such inquiry * * * * 48. On a fair reading of the statute and the Rules suggests that there is no duty of disclosure of all the documents in possession of the adjudicating authority before forming an opinion that an inquiry is required to be held into the alleged contraventions by a notice. Even the principles of natural justice and concept of fairness do not require the statute and the Rules to be so read. Any other interpretation may result in defeat of the very object of the Act. Even the principles of natural justice and concept of fairness do not require the statute and the Rules to be so read. Any other interpretation may result in defeat of the very object of the Act. Concept of fairness is not a one way street. The principles of natural justice are not intended to operate as roadblocks to obstruct statutory inquiries. Duty of adequate disclosure is only an additional procedural safeguard in order to ensure the attainment of the fairness and it has its own limitations. The extent of its applicability depends upon the statutory framework. 49. Hegde, J. speaking for the Supreme Court propounded: "In other words, they (principles of natural justice) do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it" [see A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India14]. Its essence is good conscience in a given situation; nothing more but nothing less (see Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commr..) 8. In the case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- “24. However, every violation of the rules of natural justice may not be sufficient for invalidating the action taken by the competent authority/ employer and the Court may refuse to interfere if it is convinced that such violation has not caused prejudice to the affected person/ employee.” 9. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full-fledged oral hearing but even cross- examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and fullfledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even postdecisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on. 39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straight-jacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason – perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling – it is felt that a fair hearing 'would make no difference' – meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker – then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Such an approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation[20], who said that a 'breach of procedure...cannot give (rise to) a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The court does not act in vain'. Relying on these comments, Brandon LJ opined in Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority[21] that 'no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing'. In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since 'right' result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual.” 10. From the factual matrix of the case at hand as well as from the appointment order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-2 therein), the relevant extraction is as under :- "1. In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since 'right' result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual.” 10. From the factual matrix of the case at hand as well as from the appointment order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-2 therein), the relevant extraction is as under :- "1. The appointment of the appellant is on honorarium basis and is completely temporary in nature and can be terminated at any time without prior notice. ******************* 7. The appointment can be terminated if the work and behaviour is not found satisfactory or the given instructions/rules are violated or if any, irregularity is found." 11. As per the law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Paragraph 17 of the judgment of National Health Mission Vs. Smt. Richa Saxena decided on 07.01.2025 in Writ Appeal No.2541/2024, where it is held that when a contractual employee is not a civil or Government servant, then the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification and Control) Rules would not be attracted with full force. In the matter of contractual employee, when performance of said employee is found poor and non-satisfactory, then delinquent is show caused and after soliciting reply from the employee, an order of termination can be passed. 12. On perusal of show-cause notice dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure R-1 therein) and the last warning dated 03.10.2015, it appears that the work of the appellant was not found satisfactory and she did not improve her working and used to absent in Anganwadi Centre for a long time at the time of various inspections conducted by the Project Officer. Neither any record was maintained properly nor any information was given by her to the authority concerned regarding closure of Anganwadi Centre and, therefore, children/beneficiaries are deprived of getting benefit from Anganwadi Centre. Appellant was directed to remain present in the enquiry proceedings within three days along with record, but despite giving various warnings/opportunities, she has turned up to reply. The appointment of appellant is on honorarium basis and is completely temporary in nature. The work of appellant was not found satisfactory as well as the instructions/rules given by the Department are violated by her. Therefore, on the basis of various complaints on CM Helpline, the Project Officer has passed an order of termination against the appellant. The appointment of appellant is on honorarium basis and is completely temporary in nature. The work of appellant was not found satisfactory as well as the instructions/rules given by the Department are violated by her. Therefore, on the basis of various complaints on CM Helpline, the Project Officer has passed an order of termination against the appellant. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for appellant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Having perused the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on facts available on record and are impeccable and the conclusion has been drawn after applying the correct principles of law. 14. Consequently, no indulgence is warranted in the instant intra-court appeal. 15. Appeal being sans merits is hereby dismissed.