Order Petitioner has filed the writ application seeking a direction for appointment on the post of a Panchayat or Prakhand teacher. According to him, when the merit list was prepared in terms of Annexure-2, his name figured at the top because he had 75.30% marks. But petitioners' claim was ignored and persons with lesser marks came to be appointed. 2. From a closer perusal of issue and assertions made in the writ application, the reason for non-consideration or non-appointment of the petitioner is that he had an intermediate degree in vocational course. The primary subject in which petitioner had requisite knowledge was stenography. At the time of recruitment of the petitioner, there was certain circular and clarification issued by the Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, that persons having intermediate degrees in vocational courses will not be eligible for consideration or appointment on the post of a Panchayat or a Prakhand teacher. However, it seems subsequently some matters travelled to the High Court and some Benches of the High Court took a view that since vocational courses were recognized by the erstwhile Bihar Intermediate Council to be akin to regular intermediate degree, therefore, they cannot be discriminated. Directions were issued for reinstatement of those persons who had been removed though earlier appointed or even appointment of such persons with such degrees. 3. Counsel for the petitioner relies on those decisions some of which have been annexed with the writ application claiming a right for appointment. 4. The Court does not want to express any opinion on those decisions in the present proceeding for many a reasons but surely the Court has its reservation whether a person having a vocational degree can actually be treated to be competent enough to be appointed as a teacher in a Panchayat or a Prakhand Primary School. There may be an occasion to consider the issue in yet• another matter. Mere acquisition of an equivalent degree at times is not enough to create eligibility and competence in a person to hold the post and shoulder responsibility of the post. 5. Non-appointment of the petitioner in the year 2007 cannot be, said to be arbitrary in the state of things existing then. Mere acquisition of an equivalent degree at times is not enough to create eligibility and competence in a person to hold the post and shoulder responsibility of the post. 5. Non-appointment of the petitioner in the year 2007 cannot be, said to be arbitrary in the state of things existing then. If a subsequent judicial pronouncement has been made which creates right in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner can acquire benefit thereof only after the said adjudication and cannot relate back to the transaction which has already been completed. 6. Admitted position is that the vacancy existing then has already been filled up by other eligible candidates and therefore, there may not be an occasion to direct for appointment of the petitioner on those vacancies for one reason or the other including the fact that rights have already accrued in favour of those appointed persons and they cannot be disturbed after so many years. But so long as the State has reconciled to the situation, based on the judicial pronouncements that persons having vocational degree cannot be denied the benefit of appointment, the petitioner does acquire a right for appointment but only in the future vacancy, which may arise and cannot relate to a transaction already concluded. 7. In view of the above no direction for appointment of the petitioner in relation to the recruitment process already undergone can be given but it will not come in the way of petitioner claiming a position as and when exercise for furth9r appointment is carried out. 8. The writ application stands disposed of with above observation.