- (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as "Aanganbadi Karyakarta ", vide order dated 18.07.1995(Annexure-1), passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Nadoti, District Sawai Madhopur. Her services were terminated by the respondent No.3-The Child Development and Project Officer, Nadoti, vide order dated 18.08.2011(Annexure-2). As per averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No.3 on 22.08.2011(Annexure-5) against her termination order. She further filed a representation(Annexure-6) dated 19.09.2011 before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, but the same were not decided. Thereafter, petitioner preferred the present writ petition with a prayer that respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of "Aanganbadi Karyakarta ". The respondents have filed their reply to writ petition, wherein it is stated that as and when inspection of Office of petitioner was done, she was found absent, therefore, notices were given to her and thereafter, services of petitioner were terminated. It has further been submitted that representations dated 22.08.2011 and 19.09.2011, addressed to respondent Nos.3 and 4, were never received and the same appears to be an afterthought, so as to prefer the present writ petition. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1995 and was continuously working till the date of termination of her services vide order dated 18.08.2011. He submitted that petitioner continuously worked for 16 years and there was no complaint against her. She filed representations before the respondent Nos.3 and 4, but the same have not been decided by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondents have issued a Circular dated 15.09.2003(Annexure-4), wherein a procedure has been prescribed for selection and removal of "Aanganbadi Karyakarta ". He submitted that as per above Circular dated 15.09.2003, it was a duty of the respondents to serve upon two notices with a gap of one month and respondents were required to endorse a copy of said notices to Gram Sabha and only thereafter, services of petitioner could have been terminated. He submitted that respondents have annexed notices along with their reply, but from the perusal of the same, it appears that the same were not served upon the petitioner, except one notice dated 14.07.2010(Annexure-R/4). Other notices were served upon other persons and not on the petitioner. So far as Annexure-R/5 is concerned, it is only a note in the Inspection Book, which bears signature of the petitioner, but it cannot be termed as notice. He also submitted that both the notices were not endorsed to Gram Sabha, as required vide Circular dated 15.09.2003, therefore, impugned order of termination of services of petitioner, is contrary to Circular dated 15.09.2003 and, therefore, bad in law and the same deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that Annexure-R/1 to Annexure-R/8, are the copies of notices, which were served upon the petitioner before termination of her services. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondents agreed that only one notice dated 14.07.2010(Annexure-R/4), was served upon the petitioner personally and remaining notices were not served upon the petitioner. So far as Annexure-R/5 is concerned, the same bears signature of petitioner, but it is a note in the Inspection Book and cannot be termed as a notice. He also submitted that representations dated 22.08.2011 and 19.09.2011, were not received by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, therefore, no order could be passed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order as well as documents, referred during the course of arguments and annexed with the writ petition and reply to writ petition. From the Circular dated 15.09.2003(Annexure-4), it is clear that two notices with an interval of one month are required to be served upon "Aanganbadi Karyakarta ", before removal from service. It is also prescribed that after passing the removal order, the "Aanganbadi Karyakarta " is required to file representation before the Child Development Project Officer within a period of 15 days and in case "Aanganbadi Karyakarta " is not satisfied with the decision of the Child Development Project Officer, then the "Aanganbadi Karyakarta " is further entitled to file another representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad within a period of 15 days. From the copies of notices, annexed with the reply, it appears that one notice dated 14.07.2010 was served upon the petitioner and from the same, it does not appear that copy of it, was endorsed to Gram Sabha, as required vide Circular dated 15.09.2003. other copies of notices were not served upon the petitioner personally, therefore, it cannot be presumed that notices were given to petitioner before her removal from service. ;