(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 570 OF 2010 Smt. Vijaya Savalaram Chaure, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Kuher, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule. 3. The Child Development Officer, The Central Child Development Scheme (under Zilla Parishad, Dhule), Sakri, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, holding for Mr. Shrikant Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of termination, dated 3rd December 2009, passed by the respondent no.2. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Anganwadi Sevika and she has been selected as Anganwadi Supervisor since 2006. (3) 4. Vide the impugned order dated 3rd December 2009, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated, stating therein that she had secured only 33 marks in the written examination, whereas minimum marks required to satisfy the eligibility criteria were 35 and, as such, she was not eligible. 5. We have perused the record. Perusal of the record would reveal that the termination is not preceded either by show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition, therefore, will have to be allowed on the short ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 3rd December 2009, passed by the respondent no.2, thereby terminating services of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. (ii) However, it is made clear that since this Court has allowed the petition only on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice, the respondent / Zilla Parishad shall be at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law. (4) 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp570