Within one month thereafter, by letter dated 21.7.1993, the school management informed the first respondent that her services were terminated with effect from 31.7.1993 on account of reduction in the student strength in Standard II.
Even though the Superintendent of the Schools Section of the appellant Municipal Corporation, by letter dated 11.9.1993, directed the school management to reinstate the first respondent, she was number reappointed.
Incidentally it also referred to certain action of the officials of the appellant Corporation which according to the Court were number satisfactory.
It held that the school management companyld number terminate the 2.
The school management has accepted the said judgment.
She was appointed in the year 1990 and companyfirmed on 24.6.1993.
The first respondent was a teacher in the third respondent school run by the second respondent Trust.
2 services of a teacher on the ground of reduction in number of students in a division without the approval of the school department of the Municipal Corporation.
It has number challenged the order of the High Court.
The first respondent therefore approached the High Court in W.P. No.1879 of 1993.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The Court has chosen to term certain act of one of the officers of the Corporation as an act intended to mislead the Court.
Leave granted.
The High Court, by judgment dated 30.8.2005 has allowed the writ petition.
