JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 14/15.2.1994 (Anx. P/1) with all consequential benefits and prays that the respondents be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner as he has been working for the last four years. 2. The petitioner's case is that after passing B.A. in the year 1982 and B.Ed. in the year 1987, he was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III vide order dated 3.11.89. It is alleged that the respondents issued the order dated 9.2.90 for dispensing with the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons against which they approached this Court and this Court vide order dated 6.10.93 directed the respondents to screen the candidates within three months but instead of screening the petitioner the respondents are giving a wrong interpretation of the said order that the petitioner should be selected and vide impugned order Anx. P-1 the petitioner's services have been terminated w.e.f. 18.3.94. Hence, this writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 13.4.94 and on 15.4.94 this Court directed Mr. Bishnoi to accept notice. In pursuance of the notice he has filed reply on 1.5.94. 4. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. Mr. Choudhary learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has completed four years of service and, therefore, in view of the decisions of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and Ors, 1991(2) SCT 82 (SC) : (1991) 2 SCC 599 and All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association v. State of Manipur, AIR 1991 SC 2088 , the petitioner is entitled to be regularised in service. He has submitted that the respondents instead of complying with the order of Division Bench of this court rendered in D.B.C.W. Pet. No. 756/90 and 946/90 decided on 6.10.93 the services of the petitioner have been terminated by putting a wrong interpretation to said order vide Anx. P/1 dated 14/15.2.94 w.e.f. 18.3.94, which is illegal and may be quashed. 6. Mr. No. 756/90 and 946/90 decided on 6.10.93 the services of the petitioner have been terminated by putting a wrong interpretation to said order vide Anx. P/1 dated 14/15.2.94 w.e.f. 18.3.94, which is illegal and may be quashed. 6. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court while considering the fact that no selection took place between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89, the date of circular by which persons appointed on or before 16.5.88 were given chance of screening for regularisation, the benefit of screening was granted to the persons who were appointed between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89 and were continued and possess requisite qualification for appointment as regular IIIrd Grade teacher, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was not liable to be screened as he was appointed on 3.11.89 i.e. much after 11.8.89. He has submitted that in the appointment order of the petitioner dated 3.11.89 it has been clearly mentioned that the incumbents are appointed purely on temporary basis for six months any his services could be terminated without prior notice. He has also submitted that the question of regularisation cannot be considered after removal from service and further the petitioner now cannot raise or agitate the points which were available to him in his earlier writ petition in this Court along with the said petitions. He has relied on Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma etc. v. State of Raj. and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1367 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and case law. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 3.11.89 and against the order dated 9.2.90 dispensing with his services, he along with other similarly situated candidates preferred writ petitions, which was stayed by this Court and they continued as such. This Court while deciding the similar petitions including the writ petition No. 756/90 filed by the petitioner along with some others by a common order in Arnod Panchayat Samiti v. State (supra) directed to consider only such persons who have not been screened earlier or who have not been regularly appointed so far if they are still continuing in service provided they were appointed between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89 and possess requisite qualifications. As stated above, the petitioner has been appointed on 3.11.89, therefore, his case does not fall within the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Arnod Panchayat Samiti's case and the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have wrongly interpreted the order of this Court passed in the said case has no substance. 9. It has been next contended that fixing of date for screening is arbitrary. Any date fixed as cut-off date will certainly harm some of the persons and in the instant case 16.5.88 was fixed. As already stated Division Bench while observing that circular dated 11.8.89 could be made effective from 11.8.89 and not from 16.5.88 and extended the consideration for the candidates who were appointed between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89 since no selection was made during that period. Therefore, now it is not open to the petitioner to raise the point and the contention of the petitioner regarding fixing of date is not sustainable. 10. So far as the contention that the petitioner having completed four years of service by now and is entitled for regularisation is concerned, to my mind it has no substance in view of the fact that the petitioner is not a duly selected teacher according to rules and he was appointed purely on temporary basis for six months or till the selected candidates are made available and further now when the petitioner has already been removed, this point cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. Thus, the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not helpful and as per the various decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot claim any right to be continued in service and the impugned order Annexure P/1 terminating his services calls for no interference. Reference may be made to Laxmi Kanta v. State (D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 669/93) (Writ decided on 28.10.93) wherein though the incumbent was appointed on 16.1.89 then after termination on 16.5.89 she was again appointed on 26.10.91 and terminated vide order dated 16.5.92, the Division Bench of this Court did extend the benefit of Arnod Panchayat Samiti's case (supra) because she was not continued in service during that period.No other point has been pressed before me. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******