D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika on June 8, 2007, thereafter, she resumed the duties as such, served for several months and abruptly, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard, her services have been brought to an end, by order dated May 2, 2008, at Annexure 7 to the memo of present petition, passed by respondent no.4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order is thoroughly a non-speaking, arbitrary and unilateral order, as no reason, worth the name, has been assigned and no basis for passing such order has been given and hence the order at Annexure 7 to the memo of present petition deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that after termination of the services of the present petitioner, she participated in a fresh selection process of Anganbari Sevika, where she was heard and not selected and, therefore, the impugned order is true, correct, legal and in consonance with the facts of the present case.
(3.) In view of these submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika on June 8, 2007. Thereafter, she resumed the duties and served with the respondents for several months. There is no allegation against the present petitioner, by the respondent-State, that she was not performing the duties satisfactorily. It also appears that the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated May 2, 2008, at Annexure 7 to the memo of present petition, by respondent no.4, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It further appears that the impugned order, at Annexure 7, is thoroughly a non-speaking order and independently, the mind has not been applied by the District Programme Officer, Hazaribagh, but, he has relied upon the guidance, given by a high-ranking officer. Thus, the mind has been applied by a high-ranking officer and the order has been passed by somebody else and that too, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.;