IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14243 of 2009 1. BABY DEVI W/O CHANDRA SEKHAR PASWAN R/O NAYA TOLA NAUGACHHIA, WARD NO. 23, P.S. NAUGACHHIA, DISTT. BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BHAGALPUR 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER NAUGACHHIA, BHAGALPUR 6. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE NAUGACHHIA, BHAGALPUR 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER NAUGACHHIA, BHAGALPUR 8. BINOD KUMAR MANDAL S/O NOT KNOWN WARD COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 23, NAUGACHHIA, BHAGALPUR ----------- 2. 10.11.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was terminated from the post of Anganwari Sevika on 27.6.2009 by the District Magistrate when the appeal against the same before the Commissioner has also been rejected on 10.9.2009. The petitioner has specifically acknowledged in Para 11 of the writ application that she was given a show cause notice to which she replied and only whereafter the cancellation has been ordered. The grievance however is that there has not been proper consideration of the cause shown by the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in 2004(2) PLJR 833 has held that Anganwari Sevikas are not government servant. This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in (2007) 11 scc 681. The Division Bench of this Court has held that Anganwari Sevikas are not government servant and hold no government post. They cannot equate themselves with government servant to demand equality of treatment and meticulous standards of examination of their orders of termination alike government servants. That they are appointed as an agent of the Government under a welfare scheme only by holding of interview and are not even paid regular salary much less appointed to a government post. They are paid honorarium and if their services are not found satisfactory they can be removed. The only requirement with regard to them is of principles of natural justice. Once it is prima facie demonstrated that principles of natural justice have been followed, there is no occasion for a writ court to interfere with the matter. There is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)