Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dt. 27.12.2013 passed by the District Programme Officer, Nawada i.e. the respondent no. 3, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the appellate order dated 06.11.2014, passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Magadh Division, Gaya i.e. the respondent no. 2 in Anganwari Appeal No. 18(d) of 2014.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that she was appointed as Anganwari Sevika on 03.02.1999 at Centre bearing Centre Code No. 29, village- Rohua under Dumrawan Gram Panchayat, Prakhand- Pakri Barawan, District-Nawada and since then she had been discharging her duties as Anganwari Sevika to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is submitted that on 16.09.2013 a State Level Inspecting Committee had arrived at the Centre and found the same closed, whereupon a show cause was issued to the petitioner and upon the petitioner having filed her reply, the District Programme Officer, Nawada by the impugned order dated 27.12.2013 had cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika, whereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal, however, the same has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.11.2014.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted upon the petitioner is harsh, hence a sympathetic view be taken.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case, that upon an inspection having been held at the Centre in question on 16.09.2013, the said Centre was found closed and the petitioner was missing, whereafter a show cause notice dated 02.11.2013 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had replied, inter-alia stating therein that since she had gone to toilet on account of some indigestion problem, the Centre in question was closed. It is submitted that since the petitioner has admitted her guilt, the impugned order dated 27.12.2013 was passed by the respondent no. 3 cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika, hence the same does not suffer from any lacuna.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by a 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 herein below: –

“(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