CWP No. 15903 of 2008` 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15903 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: August 04, 2010 Paramjit Kaur .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for respondent no. 7. Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate, for respondent no. 8. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-9 dated 20.08.2008 passed by Child Development and Project Officer, Amritsar, impleaded as respondent no. 6 in the petition. 2. On perusal of order Annexure P-9, it transpires that CWP No. 6685 of 2008 was filed by Rajwant Kaur w/o Tirath Singh (respondent no. 7), which was disposed of vide order dated 24.04.2008 directing District Development and Panchayat Officer, Amritsar to decide the representation. CWP No. 15903 of 2008` 2 The order issued by Child Development and Project Officer, Verka, Amritsar reads that vide endorsement No. 2092-95 dated 17.07.2008 passed by District Development and Panchayat Officer, services of the petitioner- Paramjit Kaur as Anganwari Worker had been terminated. Rajwant Kaur- respondent no. 7 has been appointed as Anganwari Worker. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having been appointed as Anganwari Worker and having joined on the said post, was required to be given an opportunity of hearing before any order adverse to her rights are passed. Opportunity of hearing having not been given, the impugned order Annexure P-9 is bad in law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to show that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the issue. 6. While dealing with CWP No. 6685 of 2008 entitled Rajwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others, this Court disposed of the matter in limini vide order dated 24.04.2008 directing the DDPO, Amritsar to consider and dispose of representation and legal notice served on behalf of Rajwant Kaur as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months of the date of receipt of copy of the order. 7. While dealing with the representation/legal notice, in case the rights of the petitioner were to be affected, the petitioner surely was required to be heard. Opportunity of hearing having not been given to the petitioner, who had been appointed as Anganwari Worker and had joined on the said post, order Annexure P-9, in my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is illegal and is in arbitrary exercise of power. CWP No. 15903 of 2008` 3 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. Order Annexure P-9 is hereby quashed. 9. It is, however, made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to give opportunity of hearing to all concerned and assess the issue afresh and pass speaking and reasoned orders. 04.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?