Judgment :- 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. 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.