(10) From the return filed by the respondents, it is not borne out that any steps as required under Govt. of India letter dated 10-01-1991 (Annexure R-3) were brought to its logicat conclusion after having been initiated vide resolution as aforesaid. It appears that though resolution was passed to adjust and appoint MRA/MRT consistent with the Govt. of India guidelines upon revision of scheme, petitioners were abruptly terminated. 1 am of the opinion that termination of services of the petitioners was not proper, unfair and was illegal. Firstly, the petitioners were selected for appointment to the post of Gram Sewika but respondents did not disclose to the petitioners the nature of appointment either permanent or temporary, though the order of appointment cleariy reflected that it was regular appointment. Secondly, even if the occasion arose on account of revision of scheme, there was absolutely no basis for terminating the services of the petitioner in as much as the scheme nowhere contemplated immediate termination of services of the petitioners. The scheme c!ear!y stated that the posts which are shown to have been abolished in the revised scheme, wou!d be phased out gradually. It was further stated in the sc'neme that elther posts fall vacant pr where the incumbent is appointed on any ofher equivalent post in the same department or in the sister department of the State Govt, abolition of posts sha!l take place.
