ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P/8), 30.11.2012 (Annexure P/9) and order dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P/10). By order dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P/8) it has been ordered that no sanction for absorbing the services of the petitioner has been given as at the time of initial appointment in the Gramin Vidyut Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Sidhi, the age of the petitioner was more than 30 years and, therefore, her services are repatriated to the Samiti and vide order dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P/9) she was relieved and vide order dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P/10) the notice for terminating her services was issued. 2. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders mainly on the ground that those orders are illegal and have been issued with mala fide intention and further on the ground that the reasons assigned for not granting sanction for absorption of services of the petitioner was also not proper as the appointment of the petitioner was made in accordance with the rules. As per the petitioner, the age of appointment for a woman is 35+10 i.e. total 45 years and, therefore, the petitioner’s services cannot be terminated on the said premise. The petitioner has also submitted that the decision taken by the respondents for terminating her services is also illegal and is in violation of principle of natural justice as she was not provided any opportunity of hearing to substantiate that her appointment was not illegal. It is also contended by the petitioner that when her services were absorbed in the respondent organization then the refusal to grant approval for absorption on the false pretext is also not permissible. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the terms and conditions of the absorption contained in the order dated 13.08.2010, it was one of the conditions that the final absorption will be done after due scrutiny of the service record of the concerned employee. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the terms and conditions of the absorption contained in the order dated 13.08.2010, it was one of the conditions that the final absorption will be done after due scrutiny of the service record of the concerned employee. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that after scrutinizing the service record of the petitioner it was found that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the recruitment rules known as Service Rules for Employment of the Rural Electric Cooperative Societies in Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Service Rules’) because as per Rule 7 of the Service Rules the age of appointment was prescribed as 30 years and admittedly the petitioner was more than 30 years at the time of her appointment. Therefore, her appointment was held illegal and as such no sanction for absorbing her service was granted. 4. Considering the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and to resolve the issue involved in the case, the facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder: 5. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade III vide order dated 14.12.2005 by the then Gramin Vidyut Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Sidhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Samiti’). The appointment was made in pursuance to the resolution passed by the Board of the said Samiti on 27.08.2004. The petitioner was thereafter regularized in work charge vide order dated 16.06.2007 and thereafter she was given regular appointment as a Computer Operator vide order dated 14.05.2005 and 16.06.2007. 6. The said Samiti was thereafter taken over by the then M.P. Electricity Board by cancelling its license for distribution of electricity and an order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P/4) was also issued to absorb the regular employees of the said Samiti. After absorbing the services of the petitioner, she was transferred to different places and finally she was transferred to Rewa vide order dated 21.04.2012. But, all of a sudden, an order dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P/8) was issued stating that the petitioner was over age at the time of her initial appointment, since she had crossed the age of 30 years and, therefore, she was relieved to serve with the Samiti and further a notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.11.2012 for removing her from service. 7. 7. The respondents have filed their reply taking stand therein that as per the terms and conditions of the order of absorption, final absorption was to be made after scrutinizing the service record of the employee concerned and at the time of scrutinizing the service record of the petitioner it was found that at the time of her initial appointment in Sidhi she was more than 30 years of age, which was contrary to the Service Rules, especially Rule 7 which provides the maximum age of appointment as 30 years. Therefore, the absorption of the petitioner was refused and it was decided to terminate her service. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case. The pertinent question involved in this case is whether the appointment of the petitioner in the Samiti was illegal and in absence of specific condition in the order of absorption, under the garb of scrutiny of service record, whether the initial appointment of the petitioner can be tested by the respondents or not. From perusal of orders passed by the respondent, which are impugned in this petition, the solitary ground for not granting approval for absorption of the services of the petitioner is shown that at the time of her initial appointment in the Samiti she had crossed the required age of appointment i.e. 30 years and, therefore, her appointment was contrary to Rule 7 of the Service Rules. 9. From perusal of para 5.8 of the petition, it is clear that petitioner has very categorically stated that at the time of appointment she was aged about 30 years 8 months and 7 days and it is further stated that the maximum age of appointment was 45 years as fixed by the Government through different circulars. Petitioner has also submitted that by an order dated 19.05.2003 the Registrar, Co-operative Societies exercising the power as provided under Section 85 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 granted relaxation of 10 years in the age of appointment of a woman candidate. Thus, the petitioner has submitted that her appointment made in 2015 was not illegal and was also not contrary to any provision of Service Rules because after granting relaxation, the age limit for appointment of a woman candidate was 45 years. 10. Thus, the petitioner has submitted that her appointment made in 2015 was not illegal and was also not contrary to any provision of Service Rules because after granting relaxation, the age limit for appointment of a woman candidate was 45 years. 10. Perusal of return submitted by the respondents indicates that there is no denial of the facts mentioned in para 5.8 of the petition. As per the settled principle of law, if there is no specific denial of the factual aspects then the same is deemed to have been admitted by the parties. The Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that it is trite law that the pleadings made in a writ petition or a suit, if not denied specifically or denied vaguely, would amount to admission of the facts so asserted. Some of the said judgments are GIAN CHAND & BROTHERS v. RATTAN LAL @ RATTAN SINGH reported in (2013) 2 SCC 606 , ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES & OTHERS reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 NASEEM BANO v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS. This Court has also dealt with the same issue relying upon the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of PRANI RAKSHA SANGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS reported in (2011) 2 MPHT 169 , RAJESH SINGH v. M.P. RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD AND OTHERS reported in 2002 (4) MPHT 496 Even otherwise, looking to the order dated 19.05.2003 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, filed by the petitioner alongwith an application i.e. I.A. No.3120/2020 for taking additional documents on record, it is clear that the relaxation was provided to the woman candidates in their age of appointment and the maximum age was fixed as 45 years. Thus, I am of the opinion that the refusal to absorb the services of the petitioner on the said premise is not sustainable as appointment of the petitioner in the Samiti cannot be said to be illegal and contrary to Rule 7 of the Service Rules. 11. Further, if the order of absorption and conditions contained therein are seen, then it is provided nowhere that the respondents would re-examine the validity of the appointment of employees. 11. Further, if the order of absorption and conditions contained therein are seen, then it is provided nowhere that the respondents would re-examine the validity of the appointment of employees. As per the order, it is clear that the regular employees of the Samiti were provisionally absorbed in the respondent-Board on the same terms and conditions as prevailing in respective Samitis at the time of issuing order of absorption. However, it is mentioned that the final absorption will be done after scrutinizing the service record of the concerned employee. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, under the garb of screening of the service record, the respondents cannot re-scrutinize the validity of appointment of employees of Samiti whose services have been decided to be absorbed despite the fact that they are regular employees of the Samiti. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that under garb of screening of service record the respondents can also examine the validity of appointment and if it is found that the appointment in the Samiti was not proper, the said employee can be refused to be absorbed in the respondent/Board. 13. In my opinion, under the garb of screening of service record, the respondents are not permitted to test the validity of the initial appointment of the regular employee of the Samiti. Screening of service record would mean the status of the employee working in the Samiti and other relevant factors on the basis of which he/she would be given the same status as an employee was holding in the Samiti at the time of order of absorption. In my opinion, the respondents under the garb of screening of service record cannot scrutinize the validity of the appointment of the employees because the condition of the order of absorption under which the employees were provisionally absorbed had to be absorbed on the same terms and conditions of service as prevailing in the respective Samiti at the time of issuance of the order by Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Committee and that would entail the final absorption after screening of the service record. It clearly indicates that the screening of the service record was only in respect to ascertain the terms and conditions of service prevailing in the Samiti in respect of an employee who was to be absorbed because the absorption was to be done in the same terms and conditions existing in the Samiti before absorption, so that, if any of the service conditions attached with the respective employee is appeared to be unreasonable and is difficult for the respondent/company to be allowed to continue even after absorption, then they would be at liberty to negotiate with the concerned employee before granting sanction for final absorption because provisional absorption follows screening of service record then sanction for final absorption. Therefore, the respondent-Board under the garb of screening of service record cannot re-scrutinize the validity of the appointment of the employees in the Samiti unless it is specifically worded. Admittedly, the order of absorption of the petitioner is silent to that regard. It does not contain any condition that the respondent/Board would grant approval or absorption only after getting satisfied with the appointment of the employees in the Samiti. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of the said aspect has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in AIR 2015 SC 2210 (ONGC Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others) and (2008) 7 SCC 153 (Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others) and (1995) 1 SCC 138 (Ravinder Sharma (Smt) and another Vs. State of Punjab and others). 15. As far as the facts of the case of ONGC Ltd. (supra) are concerned, they are totally different to that of the present case. In the said case, ONGC being a public sector enterprise and an undertaking of the Government of India, had a project in the Cauveri Basin at Union Territory Puducherry and about 1050 employees have been regularly employed by the Corporation for its project. Some of the workmen who were engaged as Security Guard and Security Supervisor through the contractor were members of the workmen union i.e. Petroleum Coal Labour Union. Some of the workmen who were engaged as Security Guard and Security Supervisor through the contractor were members of the workmen union i.e. Petroleum Coal Labour Union. As per the notification dated 08.12.1976 issued by the Government of India under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970, abolishing contract labour for watch and ward, dusting and cleaning jobs in the Corporation, the concerned workmen were employed as per the settlement arrived at between the Trade Union and the Management of the Corporation under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per the said settlement, the Corporation would utilise services of the contract workmen through the Co-operative Society to meet its requirements. However, on 24.11.1982 with the sanction of the Government of India, the Corporation passed a resolution by its policy decision to entrust security work to the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect their installations. The said decision of the Corporation was challenged by the Union. Here in this case, there was an order of absorption of employees working in the Samiti. The absorption of services of regular employees working in the Samiti has to be governed by the terms and conditions of the order of absorption. The said order of absorption dated 13.08.2010 is available on record as Annexure-P/4. Therefore, the facts of the case of ONGC Ltd. (supra) and the observation made by the Supreme Court in the said case are not applicable in the present case. 16. Likewise in the case of Pramod Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court was considering the fact that the termination in a departmental enquiry was made on the basis of the fact that the appointment was illegal and was contrary to the provisions of recruitment rules without having requisite qualification for the same. The Court had finally observed that a person having appointed without any requisite qualification, such appointment cannot be regularized, but that was a case of departmental enquiry. The issue before the Court was whether termination by way of departmental enquiry on the ground that the appointment was made without having proper qualification, was valid or not. 17. In the case of Ravinder Sharma (supra) also the Supreme Court was considering the fact that whether the recommendation made by the Government for relaxing the qualification would be applicable while considering the regularization of an employee whose initial appointment was contrary to the rules. 17. In the case of Ravinder Sharma (supra) also the Supreme Court was considering the fact that whether the recommendation made by the Government for relaxing the qualification would be applicable while considering the regularization of an employee whose initial appointment was contrary to the rules. As such the facts of the said case are not applicable in the present case. Therefore, that case has no relevance in the present facts and circumstances. 18. Admittedly, here in this case, there was no enquiry in respect of ascertaining the fact as to whether appointment of the petitioner was valid or not. In the present case, respondents cannot deviate with the terms and conditions of the order of absorption. The order of absorption does not contain a specific condition that only those employees would be absorbed whose initial appointment in the Samiti is found valid. They cannot take the said advantage that too without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned to justify his/her appointment. Here in this case, as already discussed hereinabove, the petitioner in her petition has very categorically stated that her appointment was according to the rules and she was not over age at that time. The respondents have not given any specific reply to the said fact. 19. Considering the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the order of termination and order of refusal to grant approval for absorbing the services of the petitioner are vulnerable and not sustainable, therefore, deserve to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P/8) and 30.11.2012 (Annexure P/10) are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to absorb the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.