Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. Relying on the communication dated 14th September, 2007 Shri S.A. Gilani, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the appointments through the Commission should await such decision by the State Government.
(2.) THE said communication is a mere communication to collect information about the services of those persons, who have been appointed on the post of Principal on ad hoc basis. This has been presumably done to consider any scheme to be brought about for regularization in future. It is a simple administrative communication which does not create any right nor does it contain any material worth generating a legitimate exception. No legislation has been brought about so far. In the absence of any such Rule having been framed by the State Government extending the benefit of regularization to persons In view of this and in view of the fact that there is no right located in the petitioner at the moment no case for interference is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India like the petitioner, there is no occasion for this Court to restrain the respondents from giving effect to selections held by the Board.
(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed.;