THUMMAR ANILKUMAR VALJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Desai, learned AGP waives notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Barot waives notice of rule for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

(2.) After the order dated 21.01.2006 was passed, I would have considered the matter. However, Mr. Nanavati appearing with Mr. Balar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the petition so far as the impugned order relates to termination of services of the petitioner and he also declared before the Court that the petitioner will leave the job or in alternative the school may be directed to terminate the services of the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by the Commissioner of Schools and Mid Day Meal Scheme. However, he submitted that this Court may consider the matter for examining the legality and validity of the order passed by the authority directing to recover the amount of salary which is paid to the petitioner for the period during which, he worked as a teacher.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid statement, the matter is not required to be considered for examining the legality and validity of the order of termination or direction given by the the Commissioner of Schools and Mid Day Meal Scheme to the school authority for terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that one of the Certificate of Bundelkhand University was not genuine and therefore consequently, the petitioner shall not be continued as a teacher in respondent No. 4 School from tomorrow onwards, i.e. 26.01.2006 and the said direction shall be complied with by respondent Nos. 1 & 4. It may also be recorded that on behalf of the School, there is no challenge to the order of termination. Mr. Barot has also left the matter to the Court qua the termination part is concerned and therefore, there shall be also direction to the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 not to continue the petitioner as teacher in the school from tomorrow onwards.