WP(C) 3683/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI. Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair , learned Standing Counsel, Railway representing the respondents. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman and retired from service from the Ind ian Navy on 31.7.2001. After retiring from service, while being employed as a t eacher in Radharani T.G. Primary School, West Bengal, the petitioner responded a s an ex-serviceman, to an Employment Notice No.2/07 dated 15.9.2007 inviting app lications from eligible candidates fulfilling the eligibility criteria as set ou t therein for appointment in 993 posts of Sub-Inspectors in Railway Protection F orce. Out of the aforesaid 993 posts, 99 were meant for ex-serviceman. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and viva voce test an d was selected for consideration for appointment and a call letter was issued t o him for his medical examination scheduled on 8.4.2009. However, the petitioner was not medically examined without any reason and in such circumstances, this a pplication came to be filed before this Court on 31.8.2009. The respondents have filed an affidavit on 16.12.2009 raising also a pre liminary submission. It is stated in the affidavit that in terms of the office m emorandum dated 25.4.85, once an ex-serviceman joins a Government job on civil s ide after availing the benefits given to him as an ex-serviceman for his re-empl oyment, his status as an ex-serviceman for the purpose of re-employment in the G overnment ceases. In the affidavit, a declaration dated 17.1.2009 as has been ma de by the writ petitioner declaring that he had already availed ex-serviceman qu ota and that he was working as a Primary School Teacher as State Government empl oyee, is enclosed. In the said declaration, it has also been stated that the pet itioner had applied under Ex-Service Quota for the post in question, namely, Sub -Inspector in Railway Protection Force. Although nearly two years have passed, no affidavit-in-reply to the said affidav it-in-opposition has been filed. On 12.8.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought for some more ti me to obtain instructions. However, Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petiti oner submits that in spite of making correspondences with the writ petitioner, h e has not received any response from the writ petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the materia ls on record. A perusal of the memorandum dated 25.4.1985 makes it clear that an ex-serviceman can avail the benefit as an ex-serviceman for the purpose of empl oyment in civil side of the Government once only. Once an option is exercised to avail the benefit of ex-serviceman for the purpose of employment in civil side of the Government, the person concerned loses his status as an ex-serviceman for the purpose of re-employment. The declaration referred to in Annexure-C to the affidavit-in-opposition, in absence of any rebuttal thereof, makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner had already availed the benefit of being an ex-servic eman for the purpose of getting appointment as primary school teacher under the State Government. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to once again apply as an ex-serviceman. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ application and accor dingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.