It appears that her services as Assistant Teacher were terminated by the Directorate of Education, Bihar on February 19, 1990.
This order is under challenge in this appeal.
She moved the High Court of Patna in Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No.
Since the appellant had been reinstated pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge, he went to companyrect the detected mistake by ordering that her appointment be cancelled as numberFurther opportunity to her was necessary as she had been heard by him in the matter laid before him.
It was deduced that the government directions to terminate services of Assistant Teachers were number meant to apply to the case of the appellant.
13173 of 1993 seeking similar relief as of the present appellant arraying the appellant as the 7th respondent therein, possibly for support of his case.
Leave granted.
Jaya Devi.
Heard learned Counsel.
The appellant herein, is Smt.
It is number denied that a judicial order passed by a companyrt can be reviewed or re called by the companyrt after observing the legal procedure as by law devised permitting a review or a re call.
1397 of 1990 which was allowed by S.N. Jha, J. sitting singly on November 28, 1991.
She was thus put back to service.
The 7th respondent herein, Shri Shyama Kant Jha approached the High Court in Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No.
