Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.8.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur at Ara, whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner as Aanganbari Sevika has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 29.03.2014, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, is that she was selected and appointed as Anganbari Sevika at Anganwari Centre, Lauhar Centre, Code No. 106, Block- Barahara and was working to the satisfaction of all concern, however, suddenly, vide letter dated 30.07.2012, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that upon inspection having been held on 28.6.2012, gross irregularities were found at the centre in question with regard to non-distribution of meals / Take Home Ration (THR), registers being not maintained, social audit being not undertaken, cleanliness being not kept and the presence of the number of children being zero, whereafter the petitioner had filed her show cause reply on 11.08.2012, stating therein that adequate number of children were present at the center in question and on account of the period in question being a marriage season, the children were busy in listening to music being played in the marriage ceremonies, hence, less number of children had come on the said day, on which inspection was conducted at the center in question. Thereafter, the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur had passed the impugned order dated 14.08.2012, cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika, which was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, however, the appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 46 of 2012-13 has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.3.2014, passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, relevant portion whereof is being reproduced herein below: –

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit, filed in the present case that the order of cancellation of the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika is just and proper as also in accordance with law and all reasonable opportunities of hearing were granted to the petitioner, prior to passing of the impugned orders, as aforesaid. It is submitted that on 28.06.2012, the State Level Enquiry Team had inspected the center in question and had found that not even a single child was present there, which has also been admitted by the petitioner in her explanation dated 11.08.2012, apart from other irregularities being found at the center in question with regard to non-distribution of meals/Take Home Ration (THR), registers being not maintained, social audit being not undertaken and cleanliness being not kept at the center in question, thus, there is no infirmity in the order of cancellation of the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika dated 14.08.2012. Similarly, the appellate order dated 29.03.2014 also suffers from no illegality or infirmity and the same has also been passed after observing the principles of natural justice. Thus, it is submitted that present petition is fit to be dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

4. 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 ca