- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER in this writ petition has challenged the communication dated 15.2.2007 ( Annexure 7/A) issued by respondent no.2, whereby the compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on the basis of the service of her deceased husband under the respondents, she was given compassionate appointment by letter dated 24.8.2001. However, despite the letter of appointment, she was not allowed to join duties without assigning any reason. Being aggrieved, she moved this Court in WPS No. 7001 of 2006, seeking a direction to the respondents to allow her to join duties pursuant to the letter of appointment. While disposing of the Writ Petition no. WPS No. 7001 of 2006, this Court had allowed the petitioner to file her representation before the competent authority of the respondents and a corresponding direction was given to the respondents to consider the representation and pass an appropriate reasoned order. Accordingly, the petitioner filed representation praying for allowing her to join duty pursuant to the letter of appointment. By the impugned order, the petitioner's representation was not only rejected, but her appointment itself was cancelled.
(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order/letter, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the appointment of the petitioner having been made, the same could not have been terminated or canceled without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that no reason was assigned therein as to why the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, nor does it confirm that any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before cancelling her appointment.;