Anjana Kumari Patel and Another vs Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are two in numbers, have challenged the order dated 27th December, 2002, passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Aarazi Lines, Varanasi, the respondent No. 1, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures-3A and 3B to the writ petition, whereby their services were terminated with immediate effect. The petitioners, who were appointed on 27th December, 2001, as Aanganbari Karyakatri, are aggrieved by the aforesaid order, as stated above, which says that since the then Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari has made the selection of the petitioners for appointment and the list submitted by the then Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari pending decision at the level of the District Magistrate and without waiting the decision of the District Magistrate, the petitioners were appointed and the said action of appointment of the petitioners having been treated to be unconstitutional, the appointment of the petitioners have been terminated. It is this order, which has been challenged by means of present writ petition

It has been categorically stated in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that no opportunity whatsoever has been given by the respondents before passing of the aforesaid order of termination. A perusal of the order impugned in the present writ petition also demonstrates that no opportunity appears to have been given to the petitioners before passing of the aforesaid order by the respondents.

In view of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to invite a counter-affidavit. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 27th December, 2002, terminating the services of the petitioners deserves to be quashed solely on the ground that no opportunity whatsoever has been given to the petitioners before passing of the order.

In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 27th December, 2002 (Annexures-3A and 3B to the writ petition) is quashed. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.