Thereupon, an appeal was preferred.
The appellant preferred a review petition against his order, unsuccessfully.
The appellant should be companytinued only in accordance with the scheme, if any, followed by the respondent.
Hence, these two appeals are filed by special leave.
Subsequently, the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the matter by stating that the interim order granted by it should be final order in the appeal as well.
In the appeal while issuing numberice an interim relief was granted in the following terms Notice for April 24, 1996.
Rajendra Babu and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
A writ petition was filed by the respondent in the High Court seeking for a declaration that the companytemplated action of the appellant before us in terminating the service of the respondent on January 27, 1996 or on any other subsequent date thereto is illegal and to prohibit the appellant from taking such action.
