- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that though, she was appointed on the post of Aanganwari Sewika and was allowed to function as such for a substantial period, but by the impugned order, her services were abruptly terminated without any prior intimation to her and without offering her any opportunity whatsoever to explain as to why her services should not be terminated.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent State by referring to the statements contained in the several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, submits that there was reasonable and valid ground for terminating the petitioner's service. However, learned counsel concedes that as it appears, though the petitioner was considered as selected, where-after she was appointed on the post of Aanganwari Sewika and she was allowed to function as such. Thereafter, a complaint was received against the petitioner and upon inquiry made by the concerned authority, it was detected that her very selection was against the mandatory Rules and therefore, illegal. Learned counsel concedes however that before terminating the services of the petitioner, as it appears, she was not served with any show-cause notice.;