JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.08 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48410 of 2008 has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioner-appellant had worked as Shiksha Mitra for a period of three years. The relevant G.O. dated 10.7.2007 which has been brought on record through the counter affidavit, clearly spells out in clause 18 thereof, that for 10% of the posts those candidates who possess the minimum qualification of B.Ed. and have worked as Shiksha Mitra for at least three years regularly, shall be entitled to be placed in the select list which shall be prepared separately. There are other conditions as well and it has been clarified that such candidates will have to furnish a certificate to be issued by the District Basic Education Officer that the candidate has functioned for the said period as the Shiksha Mitra and is also working up-to-date (Adyatan). 3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner-appellant was not working as Shiksha Mitra and not employed as such when the B.T.C. Training Course 2007 had to commence. Accordingly his candidature was rejected and challenge made to the said order failed before the learned Single Judge. 4. Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi appearing for the appellant submits that the petitioner-appellant had experience of working as Shiksha Mitra for three years and hence he was eligible for being considered for induction in B.T.C. Training Course 2007. However, he does not dispute that at the time when he offered his candidature for induction in the Special B.T.C. Training Course he was not employed. 5. Admittedly the appellant-petitioner was not working as Shiksha Mitra at that particular point of time. This was necessary in view of clause 18 of the Government order. Hence the rejection of his candidature does not suffer from any error. 6. We are of the view that the consideration of the matter by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error calling for interference in this appeal. 7. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. ————