ORDER : ANAND PATHAK, J. 1. With consent of parties, heard finally. 2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 07/08/2014 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner (District Sports Coach {contractual} Grade-II) has been removed from the said post due to non-fulfilment of the required eligibility conditions as per M.P. Khel or Yuvak Kalyan Samvidha Khel Prashikshak (Niyojan Evam Sewa Ki Sharte), Rules 2006 (for brevity "Rules of 2006") with immediate effect. Because of termination of service of the petitioner with immediate effect, one month contractual honorarium was paid to her in lieu of dispensation of her service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the solitary ground of non-grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing. According to counsel for the petitioner; vide appointment order dated 9th June, 2006 (Annexure P/2), petitioner has been appointed on contract basis for one year as a coach in the District Sports and Youth Welfare Department. Thereafter, her tenure was extended regularly consisting of one year and she remained in the job on contract basis. He further submitted that petitioner worked for almost 8 years before passing of the impugned order and has acquired enough experience and qualification for the said post. Further argument of counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has not been accorded sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order and her services have been terminated with immediate effect, which is an arbitrary and illegal exercise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contractual employee has the right to be heard before termination because the order of termination is stigmatic in nature and therefore, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Chaurasiya v. State of M.P. and Others, 2002 (3) MPLJ 112, Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Others v. Abahi Kumar and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 328 and Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Another, (2010) 10 SCC 744 . He also relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the matter of Prakash Chandra Kein v. State of M.P. and Others, 2010 (5) MPHT 452 as well as in the matter of Deepak Nagle v. State of M.P., 2014 (2) MPLJ 76 . He also relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the matter of Prakash Chandra Kein v. State of M.P. and Others, 2010 (5) MPHT 452 as well as in the matter of Deepak Nagle v. State of M.P., 2014 (2) MPLJ 76 . He also relied upon Rules of 2006 as amended on 13/05/2006, wherein it has been added that the person who has played National Games/ National Championship/ or All India University or School Games Competition and won a medal in the said competition then they are entitled to be appointed as a Coach. In sum and substance, he pleads quashment of impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State on the basis of return submitted by him submits that petitioner is not entitled for any relief and supported the impugned order. According to counsel for the respondents, Clause-7 of the Rules of 2006 categorically stipulates the eligibility conditions, in which petitioner does not fit in. Initially petitioner was appointed while claiming herself to be a Volleyball player of University Level and appended documents of Volleyball Game representing Jiwaji University, Gwalior in South West Zone University Championship [ Volleyball ] (W), which is the part of the record as Annexure P/6 and therefore, she was appointed on the basis of the said certificate. Later on, it was found that the said certificate was a forged document prepared by the petitioner for the purpose of getting the present appointment. He craved the indulgence of this Court over Annexure R/1; a certificate submitted by the petitioner in support of her application which was found to be forged because the M.P Amateur Volleyball Association (Annexure R/3) in the letter dated 09/07/2014 addressed to the District Sports Officer, District-Bhind has categorically informed and clarified that any girl with the name Reema Chauhan (present petitioner) has never participated as a player in 49th Senior National Volleyball Championship representing the M.P. Volley Ball Association at Calicut. Thereafter, vide Annexure P/5 a letter dated 17/05/2014 was issued by Superintendent of Police (Sports and Youth Welfare Officer), District-Bhind to the petitioner, in which District Sports Youth Welfare Officer-Bhind asked the petitioner to appear before the Inquiry Committee along with the documents and relevant certificate in support of the claim. 5. Petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Committee and submitted her statements and necessary documents. 5. Petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Committee and submitted her statements and necessary documents. The Committee after considering the statements of the petitioner as well as the documents submitted by her came to the conclusion that she is not a sportswoman of National Level (Senior Division) as well as she does not fulfil the eligibility conditions to be appointed as a Coach Grade-II and the Committee concluded that appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the Rules of 2006 due to non-fulfillment of the eligibility conditions. Thereafter, petitioner has been removed from the service following the due process of law and the Rules of 2006, which gives power to the respondents to remove the petitioner by giving one months' salary in advance before dispensing with the service of an contractual employee. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State vehemently submits that adequate opportunity has been accorded to the petitioner in the inquiry proceedings and thereafter the impugned order has been passed therefore, no arbitrariness or illegality has been caused by the respondents in passing the impugned order. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Service condition of the petitioner and other similarly situated employees are governed by Rules of 2006. Initially on 28/02/2006 Rules have been notified in the gazette, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P/4. In the said rules parameters for selection of a Coach were given in Clause-7. Clause-7 (3) of the said gazette stipulates that a person should be a medal winner in a game which is national sports and championship (officially recognised as a national championship). 9. Clause-10 of the said rules provides a tenure of contractual appointment. As per the said clause, maximum period for the tenure for the contract should have one year at a time, which is subject to extension in the contract period as stipulated in Clause-11 of the Rules. Clause-13(7) of the said rules specifically stipulate about the termination of contract wherein it has been provided that any of the parties could terminate the contract either by giving one month's notice or by giving one month's honorarium in lieu of that. It means that both the modes were permissible for termination of the contract. Clause-13(7) of the said rules specifically stipulate about the termination of contract wherein it has been provided that any of the parties could terminate the contract either by giving one month's notice or by giving one month's honorarium in lieu of that. It means that both the modes were permissible for termination of the contract. Either the petitioner could have given one month's notice in advance before opting out from the contract or would have to deposit one month's salary in lieu of that and the same was applicable for the respondents wherein either they could have terminated the service of the petitioner by giving one month's notice to her or by giving one month's salary in lieu of her service when they would have intended to dispense with the service of the petitioner with immediate effect. 10. The said clause if seen with juxtaposition with the appointment order dated 9th June, 2006 Annexure P/2 and Clause-7 of the rules of 2006, then it is clear that as per the terms of the contract, petitioner could have been terminated from the service by giving one month's notice or by giving one month contractual honorarium. 11. Both the parties are bound by the contract therefore, if petitioner would have been removed from the service by following the rules and terms of the contract, then no illegality or arbitrariness has been presumably caused by the respondents in passing the impugned order. Here question involved is regarding opportunity of hearing, as stigma has been caused in passing the impugned order. 12. Here in the present case, plea regarding opportunity of hearing has been raised with vehemence by the counsel for the petitioner as according to him, sufficient opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner to demonstrate her case and to prove her innocence because impugned order was stigmatic in nature. In this regard, notice dated 17/05/2014 (Annexure P/5) sent by the Superintendent of Police, (Sports and Youth Welfare Officer) District-Bhind to the petitioner assumes importance wherein the said authority has categorically given the opportunity to the petitioner to prove the authenticity of the documents regarding her appointment on the post of District Sports Coach as well asked the petitioner for making her statement on a date fixed by the authority. In the said letter, it has also been clarified that the documents submitted by the petitioner would be scrutinized by the Inquiry Committee constituted in this regard, therefore, the purpose of appearance of the petitioner before the Inquiry Committee was very clear and duly intimated to the petitioner in unequivocal terms. 13. Thereafter, petitioner as well as Mr. Arun Singh; In-Charge Officer of the District Sports Youth Welfare appeared before the Inquiry Committee and recorded their respective statements. Internal page No.2 of the inquiry report suggests that the petitioner has made her statement in detail running into two pages, wherein she has elaborated the course of events. Similarly, Arun Singh was also recorded his statement. After giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as after duly vetting and scrutinizing the documents; submitted by the petitioner and also after considering the imports of the relevant rules of 2006, the Inquiry Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not fulfil the required eligibility conditions because neither she appeared in any All India University Sports Games (duly recognised by the Government), nor she was having other qualification to fulfil the eligibility parameters. 14. Once the petitioner has participated in the inquiry; duly constituted by the respondents and submitted her statement and documents, then she could not resort to plead that she was not afforded any adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the sole ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner does not evoke confidence and substance. Even otherwise, in the writ petition also, petitioner has not produced any documents to show her bona fide as a national player or any other document/certificate to show that she was otherwise eligible for the post but ignored by the Inquiry Committee, therefore, at this count also bona fide of the petitioner comes under doubt and takes her out from the realm of equitable relief. One more glaring fact is also worth discussion, wherein petitioner while filing the instant petition did not disclose the fact that she appeared in inquiry duly constituted by respondents and raised the plea of non-grant of opportunity of hearing and obtained interim order in her favour, whereas return and record produced by the respondents falsify her claim. Therefore, she has not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, she has not approached the Court with clean hands. On this count also, she does not deserves equitable relief (See: Badami (deceased) by her Lrs v. Bhali (2012) 11 SCC 574 . Respondents/State through Additional Advocate General has provided the original record of the Inquiry Committee and perusal of the same reflects that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and inquiry was conducted by adopting proper procedure. Petitioner was a contractual employee and her contract was only for one year at the most and she worked since 2006 up till 2014 on contract basis. In-eligible person cannot be allowed to hold the post. Even otherwise, she could not claim her existence over the present post beyond (any) one year in the contract petitioner has participated in the inquiry; duly constituted by the respondents and submitted her statement and documents, then she could not resort to plead that she was not afforded any adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the sole ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner does not evoke confidence and substance. Even otherwise, in the writ petition also, petitioner has not produced any documents to show her bona fide as a national player or any other document/certificate to show that she was otherwise eligible for the post but ignored by the Inquiry Committee, therefore, at this count also bona fide of the petitioner comes under doubt and takes her out from the realm of equitable relief. One more glaring fact is also worth discussion, wherein petitioner while filing the instant petition did not disclose the fact that she appeared in inquiry duly constituted by respondents and raised the plea of non-grant of opportunity of hearing and obtained interim order in her favour, whereas return and record produced by the respondents falsify her claim. Therefore, she has not approached the Court with clean hands. On this count also, she does not deserves equitable relief (See: Badami (deceased) by her Lrs v. Bhali (2012) 11 SCC 574 . 15. Respondents/State through Additional Advocate General has provided the original record of the Inquiry Committee and perusal of the same reflects that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and inquiry was conducted by adopting proper procedure. 16. Petitioner was a contractual employee and her contract was only for one year at the most and she worked since 2006 up till 2014 on contract basis. 16. Petitioner was a contractual employee and her contract was only for one year at the most and she worked since 2006 up till 2014 on contract basis. In-eligible person cannot be allowed to hold the post. Even otherwise, she could not claim her existence over the present post beyond (any) one year in the contract. 17. The judgments referred by the petitioner are of no avail, as they move into different factual realm. Here in the present case sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner (as contractual employee) and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. No interference can be made in the instant writ petition. Petition sans merits and the same is hereby dismissed. 18. Office is directed to return back the original record of the Inquiry Committee either to the respondents or to the Office of Additional Advocate General. 19. Petition is dismissed.