JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The claim is that pursuant to a regular advertisement and proper selection, the petitioner being an applicant came to be appointed on the post of Secretary, Gram Kachahari, Amari Gram Panchayat. She joined as such on 27.2.2008 and started to discharge duties. The appointment is a permanent regular appointment and neither it is a contractual or time bound. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be removed from service without a show cause notice and a regular proceeding being followed as removal from service is a major punishment. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the petitioner urges that respondent no. 9 has been appointed in place of the petitioner, notice may be issued to the private respondents and the State may be given an opportunity to file counter affidavit. 4. The need to pass a reasoned order by administrative authority is not new law but is being reiterated by the Court for decades. If the administrative authority insist on passing orders without reasons in an arbitrary manner and which the Courts have consistently frowned open, the Court has little option but to set aside such orders. 5. The impugned order dated 5.6.2009 is non-reasoned and suggests that the petitioner was being removed in pursuance of a Court order. 6. No details of the Court order have even been mentioned in the order. No Court of law can order the termination of service of any Government employee contrary to procedures of law. 7. The order being unreasoned and therefore suffering from arbitrariness apparent on the face of the order, is set aside. 8. The situation is the creation of the respondent authorities themselves, in insisting on passing absolutely arbitrary orders devoid of reasons. The duty of the Court is to set aside such orders. The solution is to be found by the administrator. Let it be so done in accordance with law. 9. This order has been passed in the best interest of the petitioner and respondent no. 9. Otherwise, this Court was satisfied that the impugned order requires to be stayed and status quo to be maintained and the authorities restrained from appointing either the petitioner or respondent no. Let it be so done in accordance with law. 9. This order has been passed in the best interest of the petitioner and respondent no. 9. Otherwise, this Court was satisfied that the impugned order requires to be stayed and status quo to be maintained and the authorities restrained from appointing either the petitioner or respondent no. 9 and keep the post vacant to prevent creation of third party rights, when this petition shall be taken up for hearing years later as today the Court is hearing writ petition of the year 2002-03. 10. The writ application stands disposed off.