Order Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Anganbari Sevika with effect from 15th January, 2007 vide order at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition, Thereafter, necessary training has also been completed successfully by the petitioner and the petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika, honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents for several months and her services have been brought to an end by order dated 4th February, 2008, which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of petition, passed by respondent no.6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted vehemently that before termination of the services of the petitioner by respondent no.6, no notice was ever given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner by respondent no.6 and the reason, stated in the impugned order, is not a valid reason, at all. Had an opportunity been given to the petitioner, the petitioner would have pointed out to respondent no. 6 that her selection as Anganbari Sevika was absolutely in consonance with the law and respondent no.6 cannot presume illegality in her selection and appointment and, thus, the unilateral decision, taken by respondent no.6, is an arbitrary action and whenever, there is an arbitrary action, there is violation of the rights of equality, vested in the petitioner and, hence, the impugned order at Annexure-6 to the memo of petition is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand, who has submitted that the selection of the present petitioner by the concerned Gram Sabha, from very beginning is illegal and, therefore, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end and no sooner this illegality has been brought to the notice of respondent no.6 and, the services of the present petition as Anganbari Sevika has been terminated vide order dated 4th February, 2008. This contention has also been accepted by the learned counsel" appearing for respondent no.7, and it is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.7 that now respondent no.7. has already been appointed and has been working as Anganbari Sevika. 4. This contention has also been accepted by the learned counsel" appearing for respondent no.7, and it is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.7 that now respondent no.7. has already been appointed and has been working as Anganbari Sevika. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order, passed by respondent no.6, dated 4th February, 2008, which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of petition, for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the present petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika with effect from 15th January, 2007 (Annexure-2 to the memo of petition). Thereafter, petitioner has undergone necessary training, imparted by the State of Jharkhand, for the said post, successfully and the petitioner has worked from 15th January, 2007 onwards, for several month, honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, as Anganbari Sevika. (ii) It appears from the facts of the case that abruptly, respondent no. 6 has issued termination letter of the services of the petitioner dated 4th February, 2008 (Annexure-6 to the memo of petition). Looking to the order of termination, it appears that the reasons assigned for termination, is that there was illegality in the selection of the present petitioner and, therefore, her services have been brought to an end. But, it is an admitted fact that no notice was ever given to the present petitioner before terminating her services. Admittedly, no opportunity of being heard was given to the present petitioner. Thus, there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, while passing the impugned order dated 4th February, 2008 (Annexure-6 to the memo of petition). (iii) It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had an opportunity been given to the petitioner, the petitioner would have pointed out to respondent no.6 that there is no illegality in her selection as a Anganbari Sevika and respondent no. 6 has taken unilateral decision on his own, without calling upon the affected party. This is an arbitrariness in the eyes of law. Whenever arbitrariness is present, equality is absent and whenever equality is present, arbitrariness is absent. Arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies of each other. 6 has taken unilateral decision on his own, without calling upon the affected party. This is an arbitrariness in the eyes of law. Whenever arbitrariness is present, equality is absent and whenever equality is present, arbitrariness is absent. Arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies of each other. In the facts of the present case, the impugned order at Annexure-6 dated 4th February, 2008 is an unilateral decision, taken by respondent no.6, without giving any notice to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and though the petitioner was serving since 15th January, 2007, her services have been terminated unilaterally and arbitrarily, vide order dated 4th February, 2008. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 4th February, 2008, passed by respondent no. 6, which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of petition, reserving liberty with the respondents-State of Jharkhand that if they want to initiate proceeding against the petitioner, they can initiate the same, in accordance with law and, at least, after following the bare minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. 6. This writ petition is, thus, allowed and disposed of, in view of the above observations.