/*ni i»T Ei ,1, wnj iTK DJVJSSON SHRE H.L. Di TTU,CJ. SLE V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. WritPetition No. 2832 of 206; .flTIONI Parmanand Sahu, about 42 years son of Shri Vla Msriv^r Police Station - Akaltara, Disl Janjgir-Champa, (Chhattisgarh) VEI 1. State of Chhattisflai-h, through Secretary, Department of SchooS Education, Secretariat®, Raipur (CG) 2. Coljector, Distt. JanjgJr-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 3. Deputy Direcior of Educatlon Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bamhan," Bazar, Janjgjr, Disit. Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) •jSaSlfl. Shri A.K. Srivastava, counsei for ths petiti Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, G.A. forthe State. ORAL ORDEI {Passed on >rd ^yui' The foitowing oral order of the Court v»aspassed fc 1.1.. Ual The petitioner vvas appolnted as Lower Division Cierk on daily v/age basis. - After completion of the time prescribed in the ietter of appointment, his services were terminated. Now he is unemplo'y'ed. (2) In this petiiion fiied under Articies 226/227 of ti'ie Constltution of India, the petitioner calis jn question the correcmess or otherwise of the Clrcuiar issued by Uie State Government dated 02-12-2000 to fiii-up the z- post of teachers from among those teachers who have previously worked and whose services were terminated. (3) In our opinion, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted for the foilov/ing reasons. ^ (4) First and foremost, though the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 13-08-1981 and his services came to be terrninated; thereafter, he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on daily wage basis and after expiry of the time prescribed, his sefvices were again terminated. !f for any reason, the peutioner wants to take benefit of the circuiar dated 02-12-2000 Issued by the State Government, he shouid hav'e worked as teacher and hls services should have been terminated. But, in the present case though he had worked as Assistant Teacher in the year 1981, but thereafter he was appolnted as Lower Division Cierk and his sen/ices were termlnated. Therefore, he cannot take any advantage or beneflt of the circular issued by the State Govemment. Therefore, at the instance of the petitioner, the beneficia! ctrcuSar issued by the St-ate Govemment cannot be quashed. Accordingiy, the writ petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordlngly. ( Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge