In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the Annexure 12 order dated 18th May, 1992 issued by the respondent No.3 the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhemaji. terminating the service of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed Assistant Teacher in Logoti Primary School by Annexure 8 order dated 19.12.89 issued by the respondent No.3 and she joined in service on 20.12.89. Vacancy in post of Assistant Teacher, occurred due to retirement of one Phuleswar Gogoi of Purani Gauripur Primary School. After joining in service she was discharging her duties, however, she was not paid her pay and allowances, The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution (Civil Rule No.2127 of 1990). This Court by order dated 25.3.92 directed the respondents to ensure payment to the petitioner, her pay and allowances for the period she served subject to the right of the respondents to take legal steps for recovery, if necessary. Accordingly, the petitioner was paid her pay and allowances. 3. Later, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 30.3.92 asking the petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why her appointment should not be cancelled. Annexure 10 cyclostyled notice keeping some blanks, which has been filled in by hand, was served on the petitioner. The petitioner in reply to this notice, showed cause by Annexure 11 dated 7.4.92, but the respondent No.3 found her reply not satisfactory and accordingly dismissed the petitioner from service on the ground mentioned in Annexure 12. This was also a cyclostyled copy keeping some blanks, which were filled in by hand. The grounds mentioned in the said order dated 18.5.92 are quoted below : “... Your appointment was issued against non existent post/very irregularly without following departmental norms and procedure/during the period of ban on appointment imposed by Government.” 4. Hence the present petition. 5. I have heard Mr. AK Maheswari, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. K.Yadav, Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents. 6. Normally when a person is appointed on the basis of are appointment order issued by the competent authority and pursuant to that he/she has already joined in service and has been discharging duties, if the authority decides to remove him/ her from service, the authority must give sufficient opportunity. K.Yadav, Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents. 6. Normally when a person is appointed on the basis of are appointment order issued by the competent authority and pursuant to that he/she has already joined in service and has been discharging duties, if the authority decides to remove him/ her from service, the authority must give sufficient opportunity. Before dismissing such person there must be application of mind by the authority and pass order in accordance with the Rules, especially in the case of termination of service. However, in the instant case, this has not been done. Moreover, the impunged termination order dated 18.5.92 is a cyclostyled one and, no specific ground has been mentioned therein. It is not known on what ground the service of the petitioner was terminated. The ground mentioned therein are as follows : “...that the appointment was issued against non existent post/very irregularly without following departmental norms and procedure/during the period of ban on appointment imposed by the Government.” 7. From this it cannot be said that on what ground the service of the petitioner was terminated. In my opinion, the respondentNo.3 issued the Annexure 12 order without proper application of mind and without giving proper reasons. Therefore, this Annexure 12 order cannot be sustained in law. 8.1, therefore, set aside the Annexure 12 order dated 18.5.92 issued by the respondent No.3 terminating the service of the petitioner and she shall be deemed to be in service. She shall be taken back to her service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits inclusive of her back wages. 9. With the above direction the petition is allowed. No costs.