Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Heard learned counsel for the review-petitioner and perused the records. 2. This review petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 4.10.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 446 of 2006 (Ashish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein the Court had come to the conclusion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned Single Judge and had dismissed the special appeal giving reasons. 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant submitted that the petitioner fulfils the qualification provided under the relevant rules for the post of Psychologist, according to which the requirement is M.A. in Psychology and preferential qualification is; B.Ed. and L.T. The Court did not consider the said rule while rejecting the intra court appeal. 4. It is further submitted that the post of Psychologist is not meant for teaching and the main work is to do counselling of students as per their interest so that the students can be given proper education, which is provided in the circular dated 27.2.1985, however the same was also not considered, although it goes to the root of the case. 5. We have considered the arguments placed before the Court and have gone through the records. 6. The post in question was advertised in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' inviting applications for Group 'C' posts in different services of the State Government. The petitioner-appellant had applied for appointment on the post of Psychologist in the Office of Director, Department of Social Welfare, U.P., Lucknow. The qualifications as prescribed under the said advertisement mentions that the candidate must be graduate in Psychology subject or L.T./B.T./B.Ed. The preferential qualification was Diploma in Guidance Psychology from Bureau of Psychology, Allahabad or from any recognized institution by the Central Government and the knowledge of Hindi was also required. 7. The petitioner-appellant having passed M.A. in the subject Psychology had applied for the post in question. Admittedly, he did not possess the qualification of L.T./B.T. or B.Ed. The petitioner-appellant was although allowed to appear in written examination, however after verification of documents/testimonials he was refused appointment on the ground that he does not possess L.T./B.T./B.Ed. qualification. 8. Learned Single Judge considering the relevant rules had observed that the qualification required for the post in question was 'graduation degree' with the subject concerned along with L.T./B.T./B.Ed., as the case may be. qualification. 8. Learned Single Judge considering the relevant rules had observed that the qualification required for the post in question was 'graduation degree' with the subject concerned along with L.T./B.T./B.Ed., as the case may be. This Court while upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge had observed that in the advertisement in pursuance of which the petitioner-appellant had applied, the prescribed qualification was graduation with subject 'Psychology' along with L.T./B.T./B.Ed. degree. That being so the petitioner-appellant fully knew at the time of application that he must possess the said essential qualifications as provided in the advertisement. In case he was aggrieved by description of such qualifications, he could have been better advised to challenge the said advertisement even before applying but once he had applied in terms of the aforesaid advertisement without any protest he can not turn around and say that these conditions were illegally placed in the advertisement. 9. We do not find any error in the conclusion drawn by the Court while dismissing the special appeal. There is no apparent error on the face of record. 10. The review petition being devoid of merits is dismissed at the admission stage. _____________