[2025:RJ-JP:13214] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13255/2024 Sorabh Kumar S/o Shri Kishan Chand Gupta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jain Gali, Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The District Collector, Bharatpur, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Govt. of Rajasthan, District Bharatpur (Raj.). 2. The Vice Chairman, Niti Aayog, Govt. of India, Sansad Marg, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi- 110001. 3. The Senior Consultant, Aspirational Districts Programme, Niti Aayog, Govt. of India, Sansad Marg, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi- 110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi-AGC with Ms. Deepa Singh JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Aspirational Block Fellow (ABF). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the aforesaid post on contract basis for a period of one year but before completion of the said period, the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice or without providing any opportunity of hearing to him. Counsel submits that [2025:RJ-JP:13214] (2 of 3) [CW-13255/2024] the aforesaid order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a particular term of one year with the specific understanding that his services can be terminated without issuing any notice. Counsel submits that certain complaints were received against the petitioner which has reflected negligence on the part of the petitioner in discharging his duties. Counsel submits that considering the reasons stated therein, the order impugned was passed. Counsel submits that in the case of contractual employee, neither a notice nor any opportunity of hearing is required before passing the impugned order. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Reply to the writ petition indicates that the petitioner was appointed as Aspirational Block Fellow (ABF) for a period of one year. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has been removed from service by the respondents vide order dated 30.07.2024. This fact is also not in dispute that before passing the aforesaid order, neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and straightaway the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. [2025:RJ-JP:13214] (3 of 3) [CW-13255/2024] 6. It is settled proposition of law whenever any adverse order is passed against any person, at least an opportunity of hearing is required to be given but in the instant case, the aforesaid process has not been followed and straightaway the order impugned has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to pass fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/8