JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents disqualifying her from appointment on the post of Sahayak Nritya Guru in the Jaipur Katthak Kendra. Prior to that, she had been appointed as Tutor in the same institution on 31.7.90 as contained in Annexure-9 for a period of one year on probation and still prior to that she had been given fixed term appointment on the said post by virtue of various orders, which had been extended from time to time. It has been asserted that the appointment dated 31.7.90 was a regular appointment as she was fully qualified to be retained on the post. Hence, the notice of termination of her services is illegal and fit to be quashed. 2. A show cause notice had been issued by this Court to the respondents and in response to the same it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner's appointment had been temporary which was extended from time to time on certain terms and conditions. The order dated 31.7.90 was also one such appointment wherein it had been specifically laid down that she had been appointed conditionally from 1st August, 1990 till 31st July, 1991 and during this period her performance was to be judged by a duly constituted committee and if her services were found satisfactory, she was to be regularised and in case of unsatisfactory services she would be removed from the post. Five persons were similarly appointed. Petitioner-Smt. Dheera Mukharjee had been appointed as a Tutor and one Kanhaiya Lal Jabra had been appointed as Sahayak Nritya Guru (Assistant Dance Teacher). However, the said order lost its force as certain posts were, thereafter, created and sanctioned by the competent authority in the prescribed pay-scale laying down also the qualifications for several posts including the post of Sahayak Nritya Guru. The essential qualifications for the post of Sahayak Nritya Guru in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 were also laid down which were that the incumbent should be possessing post graduate degree or its equivalent degree in music and dance or 5 years experience in the field of Katthak Shaili of Jaipur Style and in addition to the aforesaid experience the incumbent should have given at least 5 performances either on Doordarshan or Public Performance in a Dance Programme. The claim of the petitioner has, therefore, been resisted on the ground that the screening committee considered the cases for regularisation of the services of the persons who had been working in the Kendra and the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualifications for the post of Sahayak Nritya Guru since she was lacking in the requisite experience from an institution, which was recognised. It has also been submitted that she does not possess even the alternative qualification of the Post Graduate Degree in Dance or its equivalent qualification and Madhyama degree which she is possessing, is not equivalent to post graduation. Similarly, the qualification of Visharad is also not a qualification equivalent to the post graduate degree in dance. It appears that an enquiry also had been conducted for resolving all these disputes and it is not the finding of the enquiry committee that the qualification of Visharad and Madhyama degree is equivalent to post graduate degree in dance or music. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that on the one hand the appointment is sought to be protected on the basis of order of appointment dated 31.7.90, which was a fixed term appointment on the post of Tutor and on the other hand the appointment is also sought to be protected on the ground that the enquiry committee has not properly evaluated the qualification of the petitioner for the post of Sahayak Nritya Guru. Hence, it is quite dear even from the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that no right accrues to the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 31.7.90 which came to an end after the posts were created and sanctioned in the prescribed pay-scale for which certain qualifications were laid down and since the petitioner failed to establish before the Enquiry Officer who was the Director of Tourism that she fulfils all the essential qualifications, it is not possible for this Court to sit in judgment over such enquiry report which pertains to the qualifications relating to music and dance. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. It is, however, left open to the petitioner to represent before the Director, Tourism, who may re-consider the grievance of the petitioner or depute a person conversant with the field of dance and music to examine whether the claim regarding her degree is fit to be sustained. The writ petition is dismissed with this observation.Petition dismissed. *******