her regularly and the appellant/writ petitioner also did not supply information with regard to amount allotted to her (izksRlkgu jkf'k). The appellant/writ petitioner also did not attend the meeting for 3-4 months, therefore, she was given notice and in reply to this, the appellant/writ petitioner herself has admitted her negligency and various irregularities in performance of her duties. So far as contention of pregnancy of the appellant/writ petitioner is concerned, although the appellant/writ petitioner has raised ground in her reply (Annexure P/4 in the writ petition) that due to ill health, she could not attend the meeting, as doctor has suggested/advised her that due to her ill health, her life is in danger, but ground of pregnancy of the appellant/writ petitioner, has not been raised by the appellant/writ petitioner in her reply. Further, if the appellant/writ petitioner was pregnant and due to pregnancy, the appellant/writ petitioner was unable to perform her duties, then she would have filed application for medical leave or other leave, but no such document has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. It is also noteworthy to mention here that after removal of appellant/writ petitioner, respondent No. 6 has been appointed in her place, who is said to be working, therefore, when appellant/writ petitioner herself was not serious with regard to her duty and had caused various negligency, therefore, her services was terminated and respondent No. 6 was appointed since then. Hence, in view of above situated facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge in has not committed any illegality and irregularity warranting interference by this Court in the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in WPS No. 5380 of 2017. 9. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the review petition bearing REVP No. 163 of 2023 before the learned Single Judge for seeking review of the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in WPS No. 5380 of 2017 by
