- (1.) BY the Court.....:....Mr. Surnit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganbari Sevika for the Anganbari Centre of Village Birigora, district East Singbhum with effect from 24th July. 2007. The appointment letter is at annexure 1 to the memo of the petition and thereafter the petitioner was working honestly, diligently sincerely and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that some dissatisfied soul., must have preferred complaints and without any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner the respondents terminated the services of the petitioner unilaterally arbitrarily and abruptly vide letter dated 31st March. 2008 (Annexure 3 to the memo of the petition) and hence the same deserves to be dismissed.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order at annexure 3 shows no reason for termination. Thus the impugned order is a non -speaking one. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order some communication bearing letter No. 206. dated 15th February. 2008, have been relied upon. This letter was issued by the District Programme Office. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though this document is relied upon copies of these communications was not supplied to the petitioner and hence there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the order at annexure 3 deserves to be set aside. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Village Committee meeting was not properly convened and therefore selection of the petitioner itself was illegal and hence her services have been terminated by the impugned order dated 31st March. 2008. These facts have been highlighted in the counter affidavit flied by the respondents and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. I, hereby quash and set aside the order dated 31st March. 2008. passed by respondent No.4. which is at annexure 3 to the memo of the petition for the following facts and reasons: (I) Petitioner was appointed as an Anganbari Sevika of the village Birigora. East Singbhum on 24th July. 2007 by order at annexure I to the memo of the petition. Therefore, petitioner had Served the respondents honestly diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Petitioner was also paid salary by the respondent State authorities. (II) It appears that thereafter for no reason whatsoever the services of the petitioner was terminated ultimately on 31st March. 2008 vide order at annexure 3 to the memo of the petition without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Thus there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Whenever the State is terminating the services of any employee at least opportunity of being heard should be given. Looking to the impugned order it further appears that no reason have been assigned for the termination of the services of the petitioner. Thus the impugned order is a non -speaking order. Such type of order leads to arbitrariness and an arbitrary order is always violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Looking to the impugned order it further appears that respondent No. 4 has relied upon some communication dated 15th February. 2008 bearing letter No. 206 issued from the office of the District Programme Officer. On the basis of this communication. the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Nobody knows as to what that letter was about. Copy of this communication has also not been supplied to the petitioner. It is therefore rightly submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that had an opportunity been given to the petitioner. it could have been pointed out by her that no illegality has been committed in appointing the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika. (III) Counsel for the respondent State has submitted that the reason for termination of the services of the petitioner has been given in the counter affidavit that selection of the petitioner by the Selection Committee was illegal because of incomplete coram. (IV) Reason assigned in the counter affidavit is of no help to the respondents. It ought to have been referred to in the impugned order itself, other Wise all invalid and non -speaking orders will be converted into valid and speaking orders with the passage of time upon filing counter affidavit. The Honble Supreme Court held in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR (39) 1952 SC 16, as under: "19. An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order? of what he meant, or of what as in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." (Emphasis supplied) (V) Honble Supreme Court has also held in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, as under: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose. J. in Gordhandas bhanjl": Public order publicly made in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow old. (Emphasis supplied.) (VI) In view bf the aforesaid decisions if the reasons are not given in the impugned order the same can not be supplied subsequently in the cow1ter affidavit.;