Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order issued vide memo no. 2626-30 dated 7.5.1997, as contained in annexure 3, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the order, as contained in annexure 1 dated 18th November, 1991, the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon in High School, Jhandapur on temporary basis and the petitioner thereafter continued to work on the post and by virtue of order, as contained in annexure 3, now he has been terminated. It is also submitted that no notice, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner before passing of the order impugned. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner was appointed in a manner unknown to law and the norms laid down for such appointment were not followed to the extent that neither posts were advertised nor names were called for from the employment exchange. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that before passing of the order, as contained in annexure 3, a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner and this fact is born out from the impugned order itself. 5. It appears that the petitioner was appointed by the District Education Officer on the post of peon vide annexure 1. But, at the same time, it appears that neither the post was advertised nor any notice was displayed on the notice board asking the desirous persons to apply for the same nor names were called for from the employment exchange. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner was engaged in that school temporarily as a water-man and the authorities seeing his performance satisfactory appointed him on the post of peon. 7. This may be one of the considerations, but still then the procedures for appointment known to law could have been followed. 8. In the counter affidavit, however, it is not stated as to whether the post in question, which fell vacant on account of termination of the petitioner, has been filled up. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the order impugned. 10. 8. In the counter affidavit, however, it is not stated as to whether the post in question, which fell vacant on account of termination of the petitioner, has been filled up. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the order impugned. 10. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities concerned are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in case he represents and the post as such has not been filled up. The authorities while completing this exercise will keep in view the fact that the petitioner has continued on the post for about seven years. 11. With the directions/observations made above, this application is dismissed.