WP(C) 4653/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, by the present petition has challenged the order of term ination terminating her service as Assistant Teacher, passed by the Director of Education, BTC basically on the ground that though the show-cause notice was iss ued, before passing the order of termination, no hearing was given. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, M r. Goswami, the learned standing counsel Education Department appearing for the State respondents and Mr. D. Das, the learned standing counsel for the responden t BTC authority. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition i s taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though sh e was appointed initially as Stipendiary Teacher and thereafter her service was regularized and she was paid in the in the regular scale of pay, on the basis of the selection made by the competent authority, the Director of Education, BTC w ithout giving any opportunity for hearing has passed the impugned order dated 01 .12.2008 terminating her service. It is the case of the petitioner that though s he has submitted the reply to the show-cause notice issued, no hearing was given before passing the order of termination. The further case of the petitioner is that she has not been paid her salary for a certain period of time though she ha s been serving till she was terminated from service. Mr. Das, the learned standing counsel for the respondent BTC has submitt ed that the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice issued submitted her sh ow-cause reply, but before passing the order of termination no hearing has been given to the petitioner. Mr. Das further submits that the BTC authority has deci ded to hear the petitioner personally, as such hearing is required to be given b efore passing of the order of termination. The case of the petitioner being that she was appointed pursuant to the selection made by the competent authority, her service could not be terminated w ithout giving the full opportunity to her to show-cause as to why her service sh ould not be terminated. The order of termination issued to the petitioner reveal s that such termination has been issued on five grounds. Admittedly the show-cau se notice was issued to which the petitioner has submitted her reply. The order of the Director of Education impugned in the present writ petition does not reve al consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show-c ause notice issued. The said order also does not reveal giving any hearing to th e petitioner before passing such order. In view of the aforesaid position, the order of termination is set aside . The petitioner is deem to be in service with effect from the date of terminati on. The petitioner shall be paid her salary to which she is entitled to within a period of 3(three) months from today, provided she was serving till the date of her termination. Since the order of termination has been set aside on the groun d of not hearing the petitioner, though she has submitted her reply to the show- cause notice issued, the Director of Education, BTC is directed to hear the peti tioner, for which the petitioner shall appear before the said authority on 04.12 .2009. The Director of Education thereafter upon hearing and upon consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner as well as keeping in view the material s available on record shall pass necessary order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated abov e. No cost.