Sujoy Paul, J.;-

1. Heard. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 21.11.2000 whereby her services were terminated. Shri Vivek Jain submits that as per Rule 12 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shishan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ko Padachyut Karne Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983, the management could not have terminated her services. He fairly admits that at the time of petitioner's termination, the rules were in force. He submits that order Annexure P-1 runs contrary to rules and is nullity in the eyes of law. In addition, Shri Jain submits that another similarly situated employee was also terminated, filed W.P. No. 5752/2007 before this Court which was decided vide Annexure P-2 and the petitioner is similarly situated.

2. The prayer is opposed by the other side.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect.

4. The petitioner in para 4 of the petition has stated that there is no delay in filing the petition. The petitioner was terminated way back on 21.4.2000. This petition is filed almost after 13 years. The bone of contention of Shri Jain is that the order is a nullity. In my opinion, even if it is a