Judgment :- (1.) Let the affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record. (2.) The writ petitioner was employed by the concerned Panchayet Samity as a Typist on casual basis in 2001. He worked in that capacity till 25th, November, 2008. Thereafter he has been discharged by the respondent authorities without assigning any reason. He alleges that someone else has been engaged to do the work in his place. The Court will not readily interfere with a regular selection process to select candidates to replace casual workers, as the casual workers do not ordinarily have any right to permanent employment, State of Haryana and Ors. v. Shakuntla Devi (reported in AIR 2009 SC 869 ) and General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi and Ors. with an analogous matter (reported in (2009) 7 SCC 205 ). (3.) But without initiating a regular selection process a casual worker who has been working for eight years without any complaint cannot be removed unless there is proper cause to do so and such cause should take the form of reasons. Otherwise removal at the whim of some authorities smacks of arbitrariness and mala fide and works tremendous injustice to this kind of workers. The news of sudden termination is bound to bring considerable hardship to a worker. Arbitrariness is presumed when without proper reason casual workers are replaced by other casual workers are replaced without due selection process. The Honble Supreme Court has in similar circumstances deprecated this practice by saying "the course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis" Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292 ). (4.) Admittedly, there is no regular selection process undertaken in this case. A casual worker who has been working for eight years has been removed without any reasons. An explanation is called for. (5.) In the circumstances, the writ petitioner has a very serious claim to re-absorption as casual worker. (6.) There is no point in keeping this writ application alive by inviting unnecessary affidavits as the basic facts are not disputed. A casual worker who has been working for eight years has been removed without any reasons. An explanation is called for. (5.) In the circumstances, the writ petitioner has a very serious claim to re-absorption as casual worker. (6.) There is no point in keeping this writ application alive by inviting unnecessary affidavits as the basic facts are not disputed. (7.) In the circumstances, I dispose of this writ application by directing the respondent No.3 to consider the case of the writ petitioner by giving him a hearing and to pass a reasoned order which should necessary include adequate reasons to explain why he was discharged and in detail how his case for re-absorption has been considered in accordance with law. (8.) Such reasoned order must be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order and must be communicated to the writ petitioner within a further period of two weeks. (9.) The writ application is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties on priority basis. Writ application allowed.