SANYUKTA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was appointed as a Para Teacher since 4th of January, 2006 and thereafter petitioner has worked for a number of the months, on the said post and abruptly, capriciously, arbitrarily without holding any inquiry and without giving any notice and in utter violations of principles of natural justice and through a non - speaking order, Respondent No.4 has terminated the services of the present petitioner vide letter dated 14th August, 2007 (Annexure -6 to memo of petition) and, therefore, this order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that how the selection of the present petitioner is illegal is not stated in the impugned order. A lump sum and general reason has been given, without supported by any facts. One line written by Respondent No.4 and rights vested in the petitioner has been taken away. Had an opportunity of being heard would have been given to the petitioner, it would have been pointed out by the petitioner that there is no illegality in the selection process. What was the hurry in the mind of the Respondent No.4 in passing the impugned order is not known to the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents who has submitted that a detailed affidavit has been filed by the respondents and several reasons have been stated in the counter - affidavit and that the petitioner was never belonging to the very same village, at which she was appointed as a Para Teacher and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.