1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent no. 7 as party respondent to this petition.

2. Permission, as sought for, is granted to delete respondent no. 7 as party respondent.

3. Amendment shall be carried out with red ink during course of the day.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was legally appointed on the post of "Shiksha Doot" on 15th November, 2002 vide order at Annexure1 to the memo of the present petition. Thereafter, the petitioner worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents for several years.

5. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner have been terminated with effect from 10th January, 2006 (Annexure2) and therefore, it is prayed that the order at Annexure2 dated 10th January, 2006 may be quashed and set aside so far it relates to the termination of the services of the present petitioner.

6. Counsel for the respondents State is unable to point out that for what reason, the services of the present petitioner have been terminated. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that there was certain complain received against the present petitioner and an inquiry was conducted and a report was given, which is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents and on the basis of this report, the services of the present petitioner have been terminated. The report was given by the Block Education Extension Officer, Gamaharia, Seraikella Kharsawan, dated 8th September, 2005.

7. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order of termination of the present petitioner dated 10th January, 2006 at Annexure2 to the memo of the present petition mainly on the following facts and reasons:

(i) The present petitioner was appointed as "Shiksha Doot" on 15th November, 2002 vide order at Annexure1 to the memo of the present petition.

(ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner worked as "Shiksha Doot" honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents for several months and for several years. The petitioner was also getting salary from the respondents Government authorities.

(iii) It further appears that without giving any notice to the petitioner and without holding any inquiry, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end vide order at Annexure2 dated 10th January, 2006. No reason worth the name has been assigned in the said order. Thus, the order is a nonspeaking order and therefore, there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and as the order is a nonspeaking order, it is an arbitrary in nature. Whenever there is an arbitrariness in termination of services of an employee there is always violation of right of equality, hence, the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(iv) Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is an inquiry conducted by the Block Education Extension Officer, which is at AnnexureA to the counter affidavit. Looking to this AnnexureA to the counter affidavit, it appears that the so called inquiry is also conducted exparte. For this inquiry also at least notice should have been given to the petitioner so that the petitioner could have reply the allegations levelled against her. Moreover, a copy of the so called report at AnnexureA, if at all relied upon while terminating the services of the petitioner, ought to have been supplied to the petitioner. Never a copy of the report have been supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, the so called report has got no relevance for termination of the services of the petitioner.

(v) Moreover, as stated hereinabove that the impugned order dated 10th January, 2006 at Annexure2 is thoroughly a nonspeaking order and t