Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.

1. Heard the parties finally.

2. Mr. A.K. Verma, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that inspite of order dated 25.7.2006 (Annexure 7) passed in W.P. (S) No. 1396 of 2004, the respondents has rejected petitioners claim on the ground that he was appointed on compassionate ground.

3. Counsel for the State submitted that petitioner was actually appointed as Matric Trained Teacher and not as B.Sc. Untrained Teacher, as the formalities for appointing B.Sc. Untrained Teacher were not complied while appointing the petitioner; and that there is difference between appointment on a post and grant of pay scale.

4. In reply, Mr. Verma submitted that the petitioner was rightly appointed as Science Teacher in B.Sc. Untrained scale. He referred to Circular No. 223 dated 2.6.1988 to show that the Matric Trained Teacher does not come under the category of Science Teacher. He submitted that the petitioner was directly appointed as B.Sc. Untrained Science Teacher which will also appear from his service book.

5. In my opinion, the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary and are liable to be set aside. The arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the State and the