JUDGEMENT 1. By Annexure-7 dated 31.12.2005 petitioner was disengaged from his contract of service as Shiksha Mitra on the ground that he had not acquired the higher qualification of Intermediate. He moved this Court through CWJC No. 8785 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 6.7.2009, as contained in Annexure-9, granting liberty to him to move the Tribunal. Accordingly, petitioner moved the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2009, as contained in Annexure-10, has disposed of the application of the petitioner by a reasoned order denying his claim. These two orders are, therefore, under challenge in this writ application. 2. In support of his challenge learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon an order dated 9.8.2010 passed by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 11560 of 2010, an order dated 23.7.2010 passed in CWJC No. 1606 of 2010 and a judgment of this Court reported in 2010(2) PLJR 241 and also a judgment of this Court reported in the same volume of PLJR at Page 335. 3. These judgments show that the cases were of absorbed Panchayat Teachers who were absorbed, after their service as Shiksha Mitra, as per the Rules, in spite of their having not acquired Intermediate qualification. After their absorption as Panchayat Teachers they acquired the qualification late. This Court held in those judgments that the time limit of 33 months for acquiring the qualification was not mandatory and if the absorbed teachers acquired qualification even late they should not be terminated from service on that ground. This Court also found that though as Shiksha Mitras they had not acquired the qualification, but their services had already absorbed. Therefore, they cannot be terminated now on the ground that they had not acquired the qualification while they were functioning as Shiksha Mitra and they have been wrongly absorbed. 4. The case of the petitioner is entirely different. Annexure-7 dated 31.12.2005 shows that, much prior to the Rule coming into force, he was disengaged and his service was not further extended for another term on the ground that he had not enhanced his qualification. So far as the petitioner is concerned his case ended there. Therefore, he cannot claim parity with the other Shiksha Mitras who were wrongly absorbed in service as Panchayat Teachers without acquiring the qualification and later on acquired qualification beyond time. 5. So far as the petitioner is concerned his case ended there. Therefore, he cannot claim parity with the other Shiksha Mitras who were wrongly absorbed in service as Panchayat Teachers without acquiring the qualification and later on acquired qualification beyond time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is like that of Vimla Devi one of the incumbents whose case was also considered in Annexure-7. 6. Annexure-7 shows that Vimla Devis term was extended on the ground that she had acquired the qualification from Vidyapeeth, Deoghar which was equivalent to Intermediate. The impugned order of the Tribunal shows that Vimla Devis case was considered by the Tribunal and it was found that some controversies had arisen doubting the certificate produced by her which was challenged by her in CWJC No. 18550 of 2008* and against order passed in the said writ application LPA was also filed in this Court. The order also shows that the allegations were against Vimla Devi that she had not attending her duties in the school. The case of the Vimla Devi whose services were absorbed later on as Panchayat Teacher, is apparently distinguishable from the case of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the petitioner had also acquired qualification from the Vidyapeeth, Deoghar alongwith Vimla Devi and the certificate was issued both of them together. The certificate of petitioner shows that the same was issued to him in 2007 whereas he was disengaged as far back as on 31.12.2005. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had passed the examination from Vidyapeeth, Deoghar much before, but due to some vigilance case certificates could not be issued earlier to him as well as to Vimla Devi also. 9. The fact remains that before issue of Annexure-7 petitioner had not produced any certificate that he has acquired the qualification equivalent to Intermediate from Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. It appears from Annexure-7 that Vimla Devi had made some representation before the authorities that she had acquired the qualification and may have produced some documents also, on the basis of which the respondents acted and extended her service. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had filed any representation or any document issued from the Vidyapeeth, Deoghar before the authorities before is sue of Annexure-7. 10. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had filed any representation or any document issued from the Vidyapeeth, Deoghar before the authorities before is sue of Annexure-7. 10. In the circumstances, merely on the ground that Vimla Devi was also issued the certificate much later to Annexure-7, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of parity. 11. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed.