Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that she was appointed as a Nutrition worker by the proceedings of the District Project Nutrition Officer, Salem, in Na.Ka.5/96/A3, dated 25. 96. She was posted at the Vallayachettypalayam Centre, Sangagiri Taluk, Salem District. However, on 25. 96, the District Project Nutrition Officer, Salem, the respondent herein, had passed an order in Na.Ka.5/96/A3, dated 25. 96, cancelling the order of appointment passed in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order of the respondent, dated 25. 96, is illegal and liable to be set aside. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.3909 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.29665 of 2006. 3. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice had been given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed by the respondent. Since the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner has civil consequences, she should have been given an opportunity to put forth her case before the order of termination had been issued by the respondent, on 296. Further, it has been stated in the impugned order, dated 25. 96, that the petitioners appointment is contrary to the guidelines relating to the `one family one job scheme, since her husband is in Government service. 5. The learned counsel had further stated that the guidelines relating to the said scheme had been considered by this Court in W.P.No.4414 of 1985 and by an order, dated 28. 94, this Court was pleased to hold that the said guidelines were unconstitutional, and the termination of service based on the guidelines was illegal. It has also been stated that the order of this Court, dated 28. 94, made in W.P.No.4414 of 1985, has become final and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 25. 96, terminating the services of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and void. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also stated that the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal had granted interim stay of the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 25. 96, by its order, dated 27. 96, terminating the services of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and void. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also stated that the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal had granted interim stay of the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 25. 96, by its order, dated 27. 96 and the same is in force till date. Since the petitioner is continuing in service, in view of the interim order passed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, by its order, dated 27. 96, there is no need for a direction from this Court to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not been in a position to refute the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. 8. As it has been stated that the order passed by this Court, on 28. 94, in W.P.No.4414 of 1985, had become final and therefore, the guidelines relating to the "one family one job scheme" was not in existence as on the date of the passing of the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 25. 96, the said impugned order of the first respondent, dated 25. 96, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 25. 96, is set aside. However, it goes without saying that if there is any other charge or complaint pending against the petitioner it would be open to the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action in respect of the same, if it is found necessary and if they are so advised, by following the procedures established by law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. No costs.