JUDGMENT : To question correctness of the order dated 19.05.2016 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2719/2016, this appeal is preferred. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner was in employment of the appellant-respondents as Cook since 11.07.2000. On 20.12.2015, he was terminated from service without assigning any reason. He approached writ court with allegation that before discontinuing him from service, no compliance of the principle of natural justice was made. Learned Single bench after noticing the fact that even in reply to the writ petition, the employer accepted that no compliance of the principle of natural justice was made, accepted the writ petition and declared the respondent-petitioner entitled for reinstatement in service. While directing the appellant-respondents to reinstate the respondent-petitioner in service no backwages were allowed to him. 3. In appeal, it is stated that the respondent-petitioner was working on contractual/part time basis, therefore, no need was there to call for any explanation or to give any notice prior to terminating him service. It is also stated that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not available to the respondent-petitioner due to having efficacious alternative remedy. 4. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. So far as the question of alternative remedy is concerned, it is well-settled that the doctrine of exhausting all other available remedies before approaching writ court is not a rule of law, but a policy. Learned Single Bench looking to the facts of the case considered it appropriate to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specially the non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. We do not find any just reason to interfere with the same. It is well-settled that if a person approaches under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with an allegation of violation of principle of natural justice, violation of fundamental rights or alleging manifest arbitrariness, then a writ court can very well invoke its discretionary authority. 5. In the instant matter, the appellants accepted that no compliance of the principle of natural justice was made, therefore, on this count too, we are of the opinion that learned Single Bench rightly invoked its discretion. 6. 5. In the instant matter, the appellants accepted that no compliance of the principle of natural justice was made, therefore, on this count too, we are of the opinion that learned Single Bench rightly invoked its discretion. 6. So far as the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent-petitioner was working on contractual/part time basis, therefore, no need was there to adhere the principle of natural justice, is concerned, we would like to state that the respondent-petitioner was in employment from last more than 15 years. True it is, being not a civil servant, there was no need to provide any reasonable opportunity to defend himself to the respondent-petitioner as prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 or in accordance with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, but that in no case entitles the appellant-employer even to ignore the principle of natural justice. 7. The appellant-employer under the order dated 20.12.2015 admittedly discontinued the respondent-petitioner from service without assigning any reason and without asking even his explanation, therefore, the order which is having evil consequences is apparently bad and is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. Learned Single Bench, thus, rightly set aside the order terminating the respondent-petitioner from service with a direction for reinstatement. 8. The appeal, for the reasons mentioned above, is having no merit. Hence, dismissed.