IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition No.22494 of 2009 C.Yasmin .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Registrar General, The High Court of Judicature at Madras, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 2. The Honourable Principal District Judge, Salem District. .. Respondents The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 14.8.2000 made in R.O.C.No.6382/A/2000 (Diary No.6297) on the file the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, and quash the same and direct the respondent to re-instate the petitioner in the post of steno-typist in Salem District with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan For Respondents : Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar,Spl.G.P. O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Seeking a Writ of Certiorari and also for a direction to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Steno-typist in Salem District with continuity of service and all attendant benefits, this writ petition has been brought forth. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondents. 3. On the grounds averred in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the order of termination dated 14.8.2000 passed as against the petitioner has got to be set aside. 4. Contrary to the above, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that pursuant to the order dated 14.8.2000, which was served upon the petitioner, the High Court of the administrative side, has affirmed the said order. As against the said order, an appeal was preferred with a delay. However, the appeal was dismissed and the order made in the appeal has not been challenged. What is now challenged in this writ petition is the order of termination passed on 14.8.2000. Under such circumstances, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. 5. In reply to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, what was dismissed by the administrative side of the High Court was only an application for condonation of delay and not the appeal. 6. It is pertinent to point out that what is sought to be set aside in the writ petition is the order of termination dated 14.8.2000. It is an admitted position that the petitioner challenged the said order by preferring an appeal. An application filed to condone the delay in preferring the appeal has been dismissed. Under such circumstances, at this stage, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the order of termination passed on 14.8.2000 cannot be challenged and she has to exhaust the remedy before the administrative side of the High Court. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to seek necessary and appropriate remedy before the administrative side of the High Court. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed. vsi Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Registrar General, The High Court of Judicature at Madras, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 2. The Principal District Judge, Salem District. Copy to The Section Officer, Regal Cell High Court Madras + 1 cc to Mr. Venkatesh Mahadevan, Advocate Sr.106 + 1 cc to Government Pleader SR.165. W.P.No.22494 of 2009 NSM(CO) EU 11.01.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/