S.K. Mookerji, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) It is stated that the petitioner was appointed on 10.4.1986 by the Zila Harijan Avam Samaj Kalyan Adhikari Pariyojana Adhikari, Azamgarh, a copy of the appointment letter is Annexures-1 to the writ petition. Her services have been terminated by order dated 7.7.1990 on the principle-ground that she is not a resident of Anganbari Kendra Roshanpur. It is also stated in the impugned order that she is also not living with her family in the said area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order dated 7.7.1990 has been passed without hearing or giving any opportunity to the petitioner, therefore, the order is bad in law. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that termination order has been passed by Bal Vikas pariyojana Adhikari, Mehnagar, Azamgarh, who is lower in the rank than the appointment authority, therefore, also he is not competent to pass the impugned order. By this petition the consequential order dated 7.10.1990, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, has also been challenged. The impugned termination order dated 7.7.1990 does not disclose whether any opportunity was given to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order dated 7.7.1990, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, terminating the services of the petitioner could not have been passed without giving her any opportunity to explain,. If the order dated 7.7.1990 does away the consequential order dated 7.10.1990, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, deserves to be quashed.
(3.) In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the orders dated 7.7.1990 and 7.10.1990, Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition respectively, are quashed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.;