ORDER

1. HEARD.

2. LEAVE GRANTED.

3. BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN CERTAIN DIRECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPUGNED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE MAIN CONTROVERSY IN THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RELATES TO THE LEGALITY OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST RESPONDENT 1. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, RESPONDENT 1 WAS NOT HOLDING A POST IN RESPECT OF WHICH GRANT-IN-AID IN TERMS OF SECTION 6 OF THE MADHYA PRADESH ASHASKIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA (ADHYAPAKON TATHA ANYA KARMACHARIYON KE VETANO KA SANDAYA) ADHINIYAM, 1978 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 1978 ACT) AND THE MADHYA PRADESH ASHASKIYA SCHOOL VINIYAMAN ADHINIYAM, 1975 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 1975 ACT) WAS SANCTIONED. AN ORDER OF TERMINATION WAS PASSED BY THE APPELLANT FOR REMOVAL OF RESPONDENT 1 FROM ITS SERVICES. THAT ORDER CAME TO BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE HELD THAT THOUGH RESPONDENT 1 WAS NOT A TEACHER IN TERMS OF THE ACT, YET, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRED THAT SHE SHOULD BE HEARD BEFORE ANY ORDER ADVERSE TO HER IS PASSED. THE SAID ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE DIVISI