Relator urges nine propositions of law for this court’s consideration. Essentially, his argument is that his employment contract with respondent was void and he was, therefore, employed under a year-to-year contract, and that, after the second year of that employment, he became, by virtue of previously attained continuing status in the Findlay City School District, automatically reemployed under a continuing contract.
The Court of Appeals found, however, that the contract between relator and respondent “provided for a three year period * * * and is not ambiguous, uncertain or indefinite,” and that the contract had been fully performed.
The issue, therefore, is whether relator could obtain automatic tenure while teaching under an existing limited contract of employment.
Relator became eligible for a continuing contract after his second year of employment by the Van Burén local schools.3 But that eligibility came into existence during the *7term of his three-year contract with respondent hoard. His status could not be changed unilaterally until the contract had expired. At no time was relator ever offered a continuing contract by respondent. He was offered, and he accepted and taught under, a three-year contract. In fact, relator’s employment was terminated at the earliest time it was possible for respondent to change his status. See Justus v. Brown (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 53.
Relator, never having acquired a continuing contract from respondent board of education, has not shown any clear right to the relief he requests. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
0 ’Neill, C. J., Herbert, CorrigaN, SterN, Oelebrezze, W. BrowN and P. BrowN, JJ., concur.