SUKRO MUNDAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings filed on their behalf, this writ application is being disposed of at the time of admission itself. In this case the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 25.3.96, passed by the respondent no. 2, Superintendent, Ranchi Mansik Arogyasala, Kanke, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 2.3.95 by the Superintendent, Ranchi Mansik Arogyasala, Kanke, as it appears from the order contained in Annexure -2 to this writ application. The impugned order of termination has been passed by the same authority on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed by the competent authority and even her appointment on compassionate ground was not approved by the committee constituted for the purpose. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed wherein, inter alia, it is stated that in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, the said instruction has become autonomous and the power has now been vested with the Director to make such appointment. In this case the appointment was made by the Superintendent and, as such, the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground is illegal. Be that as it may, admittedly, before passing the impugned order no show cause notice was issued to tt1e petitioner. A specific statement has been made in paragraph 8 of the writ application which reads thus:

(2.) IN that view of the matter, without going into the matter of this case, at this stage the order dated 24.3.96 contained in Annexure -3 is hereby quashed. The respondent -authority, if so advised, may proceed in the matter in accordance with law. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.