IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14427 of 2008 Decided on: 26th April, 2011. Kamla Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as part time water carrier as per Annexure A-3 by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Sanour in Government Primary School, Sanour. It is seen from Annexure A-3, order that the appointment was based on the communication dated 15.3.2002 of the Deputy Director, Primary Education, Dharamshala, wherein it is stated that the Government has approved the appointment of the petitioner. It is seen from Annexure A-4 that the petitioner had joined the duty on 23.3.2002. After around four years, as per Annexure A-5 dated 18.3.2006, the Deputy Director had terminated the services of the 2 petitioner. It is also seen from the said communication that the termination is based on the communication of the Director, Elementary Education. The stand taken in the reply of the Director is that the petitioner does not fulfil the qualification of part time water carrier under Rule 12 of Annexure A-1, policy. According to the petitioner, before the impugned action is taken, neither a notice was issued to her nor was she heard in the matter. There seems to be no dispute on this submission. Even otherwise, once the appointment is based on the approval of the Government, without reference to the Government, we fail to understand as to how the petitioner can be terminated from service. Still further, we do not find any provision in the policy enabling the Deputy Director, who is not the appointing authority, to terminate the service of the petitioner. There are several such questions arising in this case. In that view of the matter, we quash Annexure A-5. Needless to say that in case any action is to be taken against the petitioner, the same shall be taken only in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 26th April, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (tr) Judge. 3