Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner was an acting clerk in the District Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha. The memo from the High Court appointing her, No. E1-2776/53, dated 18th September 1953, reads as follows: "Sry. K.O. Saina Bhai is informed that she is appointed as Acting Clerk on Rs. 30-45 in the District Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha and is directed to report herself for duty before the District Munsiff, Thodupuzha, forthwith". She was subsequently removed from service in pursuance of the following communication from the High Court, No. E1-2267/53, dated 24th March 1954, to the District Judge of Parur: "I am to inform you that the High Court has ordered that Sry. K.O. Saina Bhai, Ag. Clerk, District Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha, will be relieved of her duties of that Court immediately. The vacancy will be filled up in due course". to which the District Judge replied as follows by his letter No. C. 177/54, dated 31st March 1954: "With reference to the above, I have the honour to inform you that Sry. K.O. Saina Bhai, Ag. Clerk, District Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha, was relieved on the F.N. of 27th March 1954". 2. On going through the file, it is quite clear to us that both the order of appointment and the order of termination were passed by the High Court and not by the Government of Travancore-Cochin. The only respondent in the case, however, is the State of Travancore-Cochin and in view of this, the petition has to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 3. It may be that the High Court was not impleaded as the respondent, because it is not possible for the High Court to issue a writ to itself. As stated in In re Babul Chandra Mitra (A.I.R.1952 Pat. 309): "It cannot surely be right to say that the High Court can issue a writ or order directly to itself to quash an order made by itself. It is immaterial whether in making the order, the High Court acts in a judicial or administrative role. Under Art. 226(1), the High Court shall have power to'issue' to any person or authority directions, orders or writs. It is immaterial whether in making the order, the High Court acts in a judicial or administrative role. Under Art. 226(1), the High Court shall have power to'issue' to any person or authority directions, orders or writs. It is apparent that a writ cannot be issued by the High Court to itself for the process involves rather the absurd position that it calls upon the judges to show cause to themselves, why they should not be directed to quash something they themselves have determined". This of course will not preclude the petitioner, if so advised, from moving the High Court in its administrative side and seeking appropriate reliefs. 4. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.