1. This writ petition owes its origin to an Advertisement notice inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Ret in the Upgraded Primary School, Nihar, Zone Slorgam. 2. Petitioner and respondent No. 5, having Science background at the level of 10+2, applied and respondent No. 5 came to be selected and engaged on the ground that she was having B. Ed. at her credit and was more meritorious than the petitioner, who was having only B. A. qualification to her credit. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has questioned the selection and engagement of respondent No.5 on the ground that in terms of the advertisement notice the qualification of Science background at 10+2 level was only to be considered and, if any candidate was having higher qualification in the Science Subject, preference had to be given to him. In the case at hand, admittedly neither the petitioner, nor respondent No. 5 is having the required qualification i.e. higher qualification in Science/Mathematics stream, but both of them have graduated in Arts. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. GA Lone, learned appearing counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. SA Naik, learned appearing counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that respondent No. 5 was having B. Ed qualification and that is why she was considered because of she being higher in merit than the petitioner. 5. Same issue as discussed hereinabove, was raised in SWP No. 1122/2009, which was dismissed. Thereafter, it became subject matter of LPA No. 117/2011 but the same, too, was dismissed. It is apt to reproduce paragraph (8) of the judgement, which reads as under: “8. Having considered the respective submissions and having perused the materials placed before us, at the very outset, we state that for engagement as Ret, indisputably, the basic qualification is 10+2. However, the State Government came forward with Government Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated October, 1, 2003 wherein, in paragraph 1, it was stated that, apart from 10+2 the reckonable qualification is graduate degree like B. A., B. Sc., B. Com., etc. As far as M. A. Edu. M. Ed, was concerned the said order stated that both are to be treated on par and the candidates possessing M. A. Edu. Or M. Ed. are eligible for appointment/promotion as +2 Lecturers. The persons possessing B. Ed./M. Ed. As far as M. A. Edu. M. Ed, was concerned the said order stated that both are to be treated on par and the candidates possessing M. A. Edu. Or M. Ed. are eligible for appointment/promotion as +2 Lecturers. The persons possessing B. Ed./M. Ed. are stated to be carrying a professional edge vis-à-vis an academic postgraduate degree and that extra weightage is, therefore, to be allowed to the persons with B. Ed./M. Ed. which is relevant to the teaching and learning process. Paragraph 6 of the Government Order further expanded the scope of allowing any other graduates of other disciplines also to be treated on par with graduate degree mentioned in para 1.” 6. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that in the case at hand the official respondents have rightly held that respondent No. 5 is meritorious as compared to the petitioner and, accordingly, selected her as per the norms/rules governing the field. At this stage, Mr. Lone submitted at the bar that the SLP was taken against the LPA Bench order which, too, was dismissed. 7. Viewed thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed along with CMPs. Interim direction shall stand vacated. However, no order as to costs.