HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 301 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard. 2. Pleadings had already been exchanged before the writ court. 3. The appellant had filed writ petition bearing Writ-A No.6497 of 2024 seeking the following reliefs:- "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned termination order dated 31.07.2024 passed by opposite party No 5 including decision dated 25.07.2024 by Chairman of District Level Committee as well as approval dated 26.07.2024 given by opposite party No. 3 Contained in Annexure No 1 to the writ petition. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties and pay her salary regularly month to month in future also. iii. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. iv. Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner." 4. The facts of the case in brief are that appellant was appointed as contractual warden with Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidhyalaya on Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shrawan Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Net Ram, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Smt. Sunayana Verma .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 19.08.2011. It is said that some inspection was conducted by a three member committee and an inquiry report dated 21.06.2024 was submitted wherein certain irregularities were found as having been committed by the appellant while functioning as warden. Based thereon, the contract of the appellant was terminated on 31.07.2024 by an order issued by District Basic Education Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri. It is this order which was under challenge. The stand of the opposite parties before the writ court was that it was a case of non-renewal of contract and not of disengagement or termination. Learned Single Judge accepted the stand of the opposite parties and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. 5. We have perused the order dated 31.07.2024 which was impugned before the writ court and, with respect, we find that it is not an order communicating non-renewal of contract but a stigmatic order terminating the contract of the appellant for the reasons mentioned therein. In our opinion, such a stigmatic order even where the services were contractual could not have been passed without a notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The principles of natural justice had to be followed. On being confronted, learned counsel for B.S.A. submitted that several notices were issued to the appellant, as many as nine, regarding her work and conduct, however, on being asked to demonstrate one notice which may have been given to the appellant based on the inquiry report dated 21.06.2024 which is the basis for termination of her contract, he could not point out any such notice. If the services of the appellant were not satisfactory then the contract could have been terminated in terms of the contract, copy of which is on record, read with Government Order on the subject dated 11.12.2020. The contract on record is subsequent to the said government order. Relevant extract of para 8 of aforesaid Government Order reads as under:- "िकसी कमीर् की सेवायें संतोषजनक नहीं पाये जाने की दशा में मूल्यांकन कतार् अिधकारी द्वारा सम्बिन्धत कमीर् को अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत करने का पयार्प्त अवसर उपलब्ध कराने के उपरान्त प्राप्त उत्तर के आधार पर पत्रावली में उन पिरिस्थितयों का साक्ष्य सिहत स्पष्ट आकलन िकया जायेगा तथा िजलािधकारी के समक्ष युिक्त युक्त प्रस्ताव प्रस्तुत िकया जायेगा।" 6. Law is settled that a stigmatic order cannot be passed without an opportunity of hearing. No such decision has been placed before us where in respect of a contractual employee, this law could be ignored or that in SPLA No. 301 of 2025 2 the facts of this case, this should be done. We are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has lost sight of the aforesaid aspects and has erred in dismissing the writ petition. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and this appeal, quash the order dated 31.07.2024. The appellant shall be deemed to be in service from the date of her disengagement till her reinstatement in pursuance to our order and shall be entitled to her emoluments accordingly, as she has been prevented from work on account of passing of an illegal order, however, we grant liberty to the opposite parties to proceed against her if there is a cause but in accordance with law. The appellant shall be reinstated within one week of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 8, 2025 Shanu/- SPLA No. 301 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench