SHETHNA, J. - (1.) IN persuance of the advertisement dated 15. 6. 98, the appellant-petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III by order dated 12. 10. 98 (Annex. 2 to the petition) but he was not given actual appointment. He, therefore, earlier filed writ petition No. 4188/98 which was disposed of by our learned Brother Dr. Chauhan, J. on 14. 1. 99 by a brief order. As per the order, the petitioner approached the respondents for giving him posting order but the same was not done, therefore, contempt petition, No. 67/99 was filed. However, during the pendency of the contempt petition he was allowed to resume duty by the respondent No. 3 by order dated 20. 3. 99 (Annex. 7 to the writ petition), therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of.
(2.) SINCE then i. e. 20. 3. 99, he served as Teacher Gr. III. However, after lapse of period about 11 months, the petitioner was served with notice dated 17. 2. 2000 (Annex. 8) calling upon him to show cause within a week as to why his services should not be terminated. He replied to same on 24. 2. 2000 (Annex. 9) and without waiting for any order, rushed to this Court by way of writ petition, which he filed on 13. 3. 2000. It is prayed that the impugned notice dated 17. 2. 2000 (Annex. 8 to the writ petition) be quashed and any consequential orders passed by the respondents also be quashed and his services may not be terminated. On being served the respondents filed detailed reply affidavit dated 4. 4. 2000 alongwith the documents and the termination order dated 7. 3. 2000 (Annex. R2/3) terminating the services of the petitioner. Instead of challenging the impugned order of termination dated 7. 3. 2000 either by way of amendment or by way of a separate petition the petitioner tried to challenge the same by way of second stay petition. Be that as it may. The learned Single Judge, however, decided the main writ petition itself by his judgment and order dated 26. 4. 2000 whereby he dismissed the writ petition. The same is challenged in the special appeal. Learned counsel, Mr. Vyas for the appellant-petitioner vehemently submitted that respondents committed a grave error in terminating the services of the appellant after a period of more than 11 months. He submitted that the persons with lesser qualification like STC etc. have been retained in service, but the services of the petitioner have been terminated, who is more qualified with the qualification of B. Com. B. Ed. He also submitted that merely because he has appeared in the examination of secondary after a lapse of period of 12 years and got the marks improved in his subsequent attempt could not go against him. He also submitted that Clause 18 of the Govt. Circular dated 10. 6. 98 (Annex. R2/2 to the petition) is against the Rules, therefore, the impugned order passed upon that Clause, is bad, illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is true that the appellant was selected and later on given appointment on 20. 3. 99 and worked for 11 months, thereafter, his services were terminated by the respondents in view of the Circular dated 10. 6. 98 (Annex. 2 ). Clause 18 of the said Circular cannot be said to be unreasonable or against the Rules. Infact there is no such rules. It is only by way of guidelines. The respondent govt. had issued circular dated 10. 6. 98, in which, Clause No. 18 of the Circular was inserted. There is a rational behind the insertion of Clause 18 of the Circular. A person, who studies further may apply for improving his marks after a decade or so, but he can never claim preference over others with improved marks.
(3.) THEREFORE, Clause 18 is rightly inserted in the Circular dated 10. 6. 98. The services of the petitioner were terminated after giving due opportunity to the appellant and after considering his detailed reply, the learned Single Judge after considering several judgments of this court, was of the opinion that the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. In view of the above, we do not find any substance and merit in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. Stay petitioner is also disposed of. . ;