JUDGMENT 1. (Oral)- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 30-9-70 of the respondent No. 2 terminating the petitioners's services. 2. By an order of 14th November, 1968, the District Collector, Jaisalmer appointed the petitioner and others as Lower Division Clerk on a temporary basis One of the condition in the appointment order was that the service will be liable to be terminated without any notice. After the petitioner's services were terminated by the impugned order he took up the Smatter with respondents but not having got any relief he has come up to this Court. 3. The first argument of counsel for the petitioner Mr. Maloo is that the petitioner who was appointed on 14-11-68, had a right to be reabsorbed in Government vacancies which may subsequently arise. He seeks to rely on Government notification of dated 23-7-66 and 29-11-69 in which it is stated that employee who may have bean declared surplus and who have been in continuous Government service prior to 1st December, 1968 will be eligible for absorption subject to availability of vacancies. It has been alleged in the petition that some subsequent appointments were made, while the petitioner was ignored in violation of the circular. In my view the reliance of the petitioner on this circular is misplaced. The petitioner's service has been terminated in terms of bis appointment order. There is no indication that his services have been terminated because he had become surplus. His services were terminated because he was a temporary employee. This circular as such would not be applicable to him. In reply filed by the respondent, a reference is made to Government circular dated 10-6-71 wherein it has been clarified that the said circular which required the reabsorption relates only to those employees (sic) did not apply to those who were appointed temporarily and whose services have been terminated in term of the appointment letter. This contention therefore fails. 4. Another grievances made is that some other person had been recruited after the termination of the service of the petitioner even though they had not been declared surplus nor were retrenched employees. This contention therefore fails. 4. Another grievances made is that some other person had been recruited after the termination of the service of the petitioner even though they had not been declared surplus nor were retrenched employees. This has been denied in the reply wherein it is stated that the petitioner was not qualified for the post of Lower Division Clerk because he had not passed typing test which has been prescribed as a qualification for appointment as Lower Division Clerk since 1968. The appointment of 'other persons was stated to be valid because they were employed through Employment Exchange and also because they were qualified and knew typing. One of the name of person Chalu Ram was stated to belong to the Scheduled Caste and also knew typing. Another person Hal Krishan Gopa was stated to be qualified and entitled to take benefit of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Political Sufferers Aid Rules. 1459 He was also stated to be a commerce graduate and had better qualification than the petitioner who had only passed the secondary examination. I may note that the appointment of these very persons as amounting to discrimination was raided in Civil Writ Petition No. 346/71 and others but rejected by Modi, J. by his decision given on 4-10-74. I may note that out of these five petitions before Modi, J. one writ petition namely Civil Writ Petition No. 354 of 1971 was allowed. The reason why it was allowed was that the writ petitioner had been appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 26th November, 1968 and his appointment letter did not contain a condition that his service will be liable to be terminated without any notice. His services were terminated on 15th April. 1971. The termination was held bad by Modi, J., because of non-compliance with Rule 23A of Rajasthan service Rules which required a notice of one month to be given before terminating the service, However, petitioner's appointment letter specifically contains the condition that his service can be terminated without notice, and he cannot invoke Rule 23A. His case is therefore distinguishable from that case decided by Modi, J. 5. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******