D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case: (i) It appears that impugned order passed by respondent no. 4 dated 18th April, 2006 is an order whereby the services of the present petitioner has been terminated in the year, 2006 whereas the petitioner was employed in the year, 2004 as Anganbari Sevika. (ii) It also appears from the fact of the case that in the year, 2004, the present petitioner has resumed her services, thereafter, she has remained on the said post, salary was paid by the respondent- Government and there are no allegations against the present petitioner about her working style. (iii) No notice has ever been issued by the concerned respondent authorities and never any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and arbitrarily and unilaterally, the services of the present petitioner has been brought to an end by respondent no. 4. (iv) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that only below the poverty line people have appointed as Anganbari Sevika as per counter affidavit filed by respondents and, therefore, her services has been brought to an end in consonance with law, facts and scheme floated by the respondents. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the reason for termination may appear to be true, correct, legal and genuine to the respondents, but, the same can not be a reason for dismissal or termination of the petitioner because no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner. Only on this ground, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 4 dated 18th April, 2006 at Annexure 5 to the memo of the present petition, reserving liberty with respondent no. 4 to initiate action in accordance with law, rules, regulations and the policy floated by respondent-Government and at least after following the principles of natural justice.
(2.) The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. ;