@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Chandrashekhar, J.@mdashThe petitioners have moved this Court with the following prayers:--
(i) For quashing the order dated 29.10.2012 contained Memo No. 109 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer-cum-Member Secretary, Department of District Water & Sanitation Mission Prakalp (Godda) as contained Annexure-6 by which the Respondent No. 3 wrote a letter to Respondent No. 5 with respect of holding again general meeting on 4.11.2012, 6.11.2012 & 7.11.2012 respectively for selection of Jal Sahiya for all revenue villages of Gram Panchayat- Asarimadhuri, Godda, without notice to petitioners.
(ii) During the pendency of writ petition impugned letter dated 29.10.2012 as contained Memo No. 109 as contained Annexure-6 issued by Respondent No. 6 may be stayed.
(iii) For any other relief(s) which the petitioners are entitled for.
It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the services of, the petitioners have not been terminated as yet however, they have apprehension that it would be terminated in pursuance of letter dated 29.10.2012. Learned counsel has further raised a grievance that no notice has been issued to the petitioners and issuance of letter dated 29.10.2012 is uncalled for.2. The learned counsel appearing for the State has contended'' that this writ petition is premature and before terminating the services of the petitioners, notice would be given to them.
3. I am of the opinion that this writ petition is prematured and the apprehension of the petitioners are unfounded. However, in view of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is made clear that if the respondents are inclined to take any adverse decision, a notice would be given to the petitioners at least 15 days in advance and their representation would be disposed of by a reasoned order. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction.
