H.S.BHALLA, J. W.P. ( C) NO.748 OF 2010 (Decided on 1.12.2010) GOLAKH BIHARI SAHOO & ORS. ……….. Petitioners. .Vrs. STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SSA & ORS. ……….. Opp.Parties. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART. 14 & 16. For Petitioner - M/s.S. Pattnaik & associates. For Opp.Parties - Addl. Standing Counsel H.S.BHALLA,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 2. 31st December, 2009 was declared as a black day for the petitioners, who were working as Block Resource Persons under different blocks in the district of Kendrapara, when they were disengaged from their respective posts with effect from 31st December, 2009 by virtue of the impugned order dated 31.12.2009 under Annexure-3. In order to revive their bread, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the impugned order, which runs as follows : “All the BRPs (Block Resource Person) in Arts and Science stream working in the District are hereby disengaged w.e.f. from 31.12.2009 instantly.This order will come into effect immediately.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with by an unilateral decision with a cryptic order by completely giving a go-bye by indispensable terms/ stipulations as enshrined in the advertisement. He further submitted that the advertisement clearly spells out that mere notice in advance is mandatory before issuing the order of disengagement. The petitioners also filed a representation, which was also dismissed and they have no other option but to file the present writ petition and finally, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order in question be struck down. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and for the reasons to be recorded by me hereinafter, the writ petition is liable to be accepted. 5. Perusal of the above quoted order shows that the same was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners nor any notice was served before passing the impugned order. To my mind, the order should reflect that principles of natural justice have been followed. Passing of such order is not a matter of mere formality, but the order should reflect some consideration by the competent authority. The impugned order does not suffice the requirement of natural justice. 6. Without going into the merits of the case and without observing further else it may prejudice the parties, the impugned order dated 31.12.2009 (Annexure-3) is hereby quashed. Before I part with this order of mine, it is made clear that the opposite party no.3, District Project Coordinator, SSA, Kendrapara would be at liberty to pass any fresh order in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Writ petition disposed of. 2