IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14454 of 2009 1. CHANDRAKANTA KUMARI W/O ASHOK KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL-MADHEPUR, P.S.SINGH, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SINGHIA, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SINGHIA, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 6. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, SINGHIA, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR ----------- For the petitioner: M/S Manoj Kumar & Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocates. For State : Mr. Raji Kr. Singh, AC to GA VI. --------- 2/ 13-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, an Agangabari Sevika, was issued a show cause notice on 05.06.2007 in context of her appointment for failure to discharge her duties properly. She submitted her reply on 07.06,2007 when she sought to explain that she had not been negligent in discharge of her duties and, for a short period she may have not been found upto the mark and for which she had given a leave application also. The District Magistrate by a reasoned order dated 07.06.2007, terminated her service. She went in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga who by the impugned order dated 21.07.2009, has declined - 2 - interference upholding the order of the District Matistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under the instructions issued for appointment and regulation of Anganbari Sevika Rule-9 provides that it was only in the event of at least 15 days of absence that action would be taken. The petitioner at best was absent for about six-seven days and for which she had submitted a leave application. The termination order, therefore, was not sustainable and was fit to be set-aside. A Division Bench of this Court in 2004(2) PLJR 833, Smt. Sajjan Devi & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. while considering the challenge to an order of cancellation of appointment of Anganbari Sevika noticed that the appointments were made under the scheme for providing food to the downtrodden and poor as well as the pregnant ladies of the village. They were to be paid honorarium per month. Conditions for appointment were regulated by the dominant caste/ class keeping in mind the interest of the village. This Court framed the question whether the engagement of an Anganbari Sevika was an appointment in government service. If it was so, they could not be terminated without holding a proper departmental enquiry for alleged misconduct. If in case, they were not holding a post in the Government service and their engagements were on the basis of contract of a service under a Scheme, then their services can be terminated - 3 - in terms of the agreement after following a procedure consistent with the requirement of principle of natural justice. This view of the Division Bench on their status finds concurrence in the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in the case 2007 (11) SCC 681 holding that Anganbari Sevika are not Government servant and hold no Government post. The Division Bench then went on to hold that their engagement is made only by holding an interview and no payment of salary is 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. Since they do not hold any post under the government they cannot claim protection applicable to the Government servants. In the event they were not discharging of their duties satisfactorily to the satisfaction of the engaging authority, it could remove them from service. The Government instructions Regulation, appointment and Servicve of Anganbari Sewika relied upon by the petitioner are not statutory rules but only in the nature of guidelines. In terms of the Division Bench judgment what is mandatory for the Government agency before disengaging the Anganbari Sevika is compliance of the principles of natural - 4 - justice. Subject to that it is the discretion of the engaging agency of the government to decide whether the performance of an Anganbari Sevika was to its satisfaction and not to the satisfaction of the Court, that it was conducive to continue with her service keeping in mind the dissemination of the Welfare scheme launched by the Government. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the principles of natural justice have been fully complied with. If the Agency, engaging the petitioner on contract basis by payment of honorarium, is not satisfied with her performance, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere by imposing her upon the agency. The writ application is dismissed. ( Navin Sinha, J ) BTiwary/