JUDGMENT : [Arup Kumar Goswami, J.] 1. Heard Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 and Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.867 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganbadi Worker by an order dated 31.03.1998 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Khadgawan i.e. respondent No.5. By an order dated 20.02.2004, she was terminated from the post of Anganbadi Worker and this order was put to challenge in the writ petition. 4. In the writ petition, primarily, two contentions were advanced : that the order was passed without issuing any show-cause notice and thereby it militated against the principles of natural justice and secondly, there was no allegation by the Gram Sabha and there was no recommendation from the Women and Child Development Committee for the action proposed. 5. The learned Single Judge, with regard to the contentions advanced recorded as follows : “5. Subsequently, the petitioner has been again issued with a show cause notice. The record shows that the first show cause notice was issued on 08.08.1999 and the subsequent show cause notice was issued on 17.11.2000. Along with the reply, the respondents have also submitted the inspection report in respect of the periodical inspection that was conducted at the Anganbadi Centre, Bairdand, where the petitioner was appointed as an Anganbadi worker. In the inspection report also, there has been large number of irregularities detected and moreover there is mass complaint made against the petitioner by the villagers in general holding that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent on regular basis and most of the time, the Anganbadi Centre is found closed. 6. The respondents have also enclosed along with the reply, the inspection sheet as well as the statement recorded of the villagers during the course of inspection. Subsequently, the petitioner was again issued with a second show cause notice on 28.01.2004 to which also the petitioner did not submit any sought of reply. 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. 6. The respondents have also enclosed along with the reply, the inspection sheet as well as the statement recorded of the villagers during the course of inspection. Subsequently, the petitioner was again issued with a second show cause notice on 28.01.2004 to which also the petitioner did not submit any sought of reply. 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. Perusal of the record would show that subsequent to the second show cause notice issued on 28.01.2004, there was no response from the petitioner, the matter was placed before the Women and Child Development Committee, Janpad Panchayat, Khadgawan on 04.02.2004. The said Committee on due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the allegations and the evidence, which were collected during the course of investigation, the Women and Child Development Committee, Janpad Panchayat, Khadgawan finally in its meeting dated 04.02.2004 passed a resolution for terminating the services of the petitioner and further ordered that appropriate orders in this regard be passed and based upon which the Project Officer has passed the impugned order Annexure P/1 on 20.02.2004.” 6. In the reply affidavit, it was categorically stated by respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 that a meeting of the Women and Child Development Committee of Janpad Panchayat, Khadagawan was held on 04.02.2004 wherein it was resolved vide Resolution No.2 to remove the petitioner from the post and thereafter, in the General Body meeting of the Janpad Panchayat, Khadagawan held on 13.02.2004, vide Resolution No.5(2), the resolution passed by the Women and Child Development Committee, Janpad Panchayat, Khadagawan in its meeting dated 04.02.2002 was confirmed. 7. In arriving at the conclusion, the learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that though elaborate reply-affidavit was filed by the State-respondents in July, 2004, in the interregnum period of 15 years, no rejoinder-affidavit, rebutting the contentions raised in the writ petition, was filed by the writ petitioner. 8. Mr. Dubey submits that point urged by him that the impugned order was passed by an authority, who was not competent, though argued was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge and he reiterates that the petitioner did not receive the notice in question and therefore, there is procedural irregularity in terminating the petitioner. 9. 8. Mr. Dubey submits that point urged by him that the impugned order was passed by an authority, who was not competent, though argued was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge and he reiterates that the petitioner did not receive the notice in question and therefore, there is procedural irregularity in terminating the petitioner. 9. So far as the first contention advanced, while it is correct that such a contention was advanced, the learned Single Judge did not record any conclusion in this regard. It has to be borne in mind that such a contention was neither pleaded in the writ petition nor by way of any supplementary pleadings though the writ petition was pending disposal for more than 15 years. There is an element of factual foundation involved in determining whether an officer has got competency or not for passing an order of termination. Only because of the fact that the initial order of appointment was passed by the Chief Executive Officer and the order of termination was passed by the Project Officer, Child Development Project, Khadgawan, the same does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Project Officer, Child Development Project, Khadgawan was incompetent to pass the order of termination. It is also to be kept in mind that the post of Anganbadi Worker is not a post in Government service, but such appointment is made subject to payment of honorarium. 10. In the case of Naseem Bano (Smt) Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 46, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 9, observed at follows : “9. The aforesaid reply would show that on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, it was not disputed that 40% posts which have to be filled up by promotion had not been filled up and the denial of promotion to the appellant was justified on the sole ground that she was not qualified to be promoted to L.T. grade. This shows that in the pleadings before the High Court, there was no contents on the question that the post of L.T. grade which was sanctioned on August 29,1977 was required to be filled up by promotion for the reason that 40% posts had not been so filled. This shows that in the pleadings before the High Court, there was no contents on the question that the post of L.T. grade which was sanctioned on August 29,1977 was required to be filled up by promotion for the reason that 40% posts had not been so filled. Even though there was no contest on this question the High Court has gone into it and has held that the appellant has failed to establish her case that at the time of the appointment of respondent No. 6 by direct recruitment 40% of the total number of posts in the college were not filled up by promotion as prescribed by Regulation 5(2)(a) of the Regulations. Since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the writ petition that 40% of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion inasmuch as the said averments had not been controverted the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents.” (emphasis supplied by us). 11. The decision in Naseem Bano (Smt.) (Supra) lays down that when factual averments are not controverted, it is incumbent for the Court to proceed on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by the other party. 12. Present is a reverse case. A clear and categorical stand was taken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 denying the factual contentions raised by the petitioner. As the petitioner did not contest the same by filing rejoinder-affidavit, it has to be held in view of decision in Naseem Bano (Smt.) (supra) that the petitioner has tacitly admitted such stand of the respondents. Thus, the plea taken by the petitioner regarding violation of principles of natural justice has no legs to stand. Therefore, the second contention advanced by Mr. Dubey is without any merit. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and resultantly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.