Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) The respondent came to be appointed on the post of Librarian with effect from December 22, 1983 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/ - per month on temporary basis after her due selection by the selection committee pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). The respondent joined her services on January 6, 1984. The services of the respondent were extended from time to time upto December 31, 1989. Thereafter no written order was passed to extend her services and her services were terminated vide order dated July, 30, 1990 w.e.f. August 4, 1990. The order was served on the respondent on September 6, 1990 when she went to resume her duties after her recovery from typhoid. The respondent assailed the order dated July 30, 1990 by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated February 18, 1999. Against this order of the learned Single Judge, the JDA has preferred this intra court appeal. The appeal got admitted and vide interim order dated February 12, 2001, the operation of the order dated July 30, 1990 of the learned Single judge was kept in abeyance. We have heard rival submissions.
(2.) The order dated July 30, 1990 of the JDA whereby services of the respondent were terminated reads as under: - - (Since you remained absent from duty continuously from April 4, 1990, your services stand terminated w.e.f. August 4, 1990) Evidently, the afore -quoted order is against the principles of natural justice since opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent prior to taking decision of termination of her services. The audi alteram partem fact of natural justice is also requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution for natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. The requirement of natural justice is applicable not only to judicial orders but also to administrative orders affecting prejudicially the party in question. In the sphere of public employment, any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just and reasonable which are the components of fair treatment for every order, which is against the principle of natural justice, Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked.
(3.) Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was 'part time employee', appears to us as devoid of merit, for the reason that appointment order of respondent is not made available for our perusal. Since impugned termination order was bad in law, it was rightly set aside.;