IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3979/2007 Smt. Shanta Bakaram Bhagwtkar ..vs.. Dy. C.E.O. & ors =================================== Mr. R.D.Najbile, Advocate for petitioner Mr. D.M. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent no.4 =================================== CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.R. DONGAONKAR, JJ. DATE:26.6.2008 P.C. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant pleadings and documents on record. The only grievance made before us at the instance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been removed from the post of Anganwadi Sevika in terms of order dated 18.8.2007 without giving show cause notice or opportunity of being heard. This grievance has been countered by the respondents by filing affidavit. Respondents on the other hand placed on record show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 2.7.20007 (Annexure:C at page 26) as well as the written reply submitted by the petitioner dated 1.7.2007 (Annexure :B at page 25). In fact in the said reply the petitioner has conceded about the lapses committed by her and has pleaded for excusing her on this occasion and to give one opportunity. It is not the case of the petitioner that this reply was not forwarded by the petitioner. In our opinion, therefore, there is no substance in the grievance that the petitioner has been removed without providing fair opportunity. The argument that opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the petitioner after the show cause notice was issued, does not commend to us. It can not be overlooked that the petitioner was employed only on honorary basis, which is clear from the appointment order dated 7.5.2005, placed on record by the petitioner. Petitioner has been appointed on contractual basis and is a tenure appointment. The respondents have spelt out good reasons as to why services of the petitioner cannot be continued any further. It is not a case as if highhanded action is taken against the petitioner. We are of the view that fair opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner. In the circumstances of the present case therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE smp