AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Kr. Tripathi, J.—Since the petitioner already stands removed by virtue of Annexure-2, any policy decision, which may be taken by the State, will govern his case for either reinstatement or continuance as such because there was no occasion for a Maulvi degree holder to be appointed as a general teacher in any school. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are many persons, who are continuing on the post and the State is yet to take a final decision with regard to those, who are working in other schools.
As the petitioner already stood removed as far back as in 2008, he cannot be reinstated now in 2013.
The Court expects that the State will take a final decision on this issue of such appointment or continuance as a general teacher as the matter has remained in limbo for a wee bit long and such kind of arrangement cannot subsist indefinitely. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, therefore, would be well advised to take cognizance of this aspect of the matter and take a final decision on the issue to avoid unnecessary litigation coming before the Court.
The writ is disposed of. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Principal Secretary, HRD Department by the office.