Judgment : P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement issued by the Department dated 23.11.1994 for the purpose of appointing untrained Primary Teachers in the Education Department of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. The petitioner has also challenged the appointment of selected candidates on the basis of such an advertisement. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially an advertisement was published by the Department inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Teacher and Primary Teacher to be selected by the District Selection Board. The said advertisement which may be described as 'first advertisement' was published on 6th October, 1993. In the said advertisement, qualification for the said post was mentioned as SSC, D.Ed. So far as the qualification is concerned, a person who is possessing D.Ed. can be appointed as a trained teacher in a primary school. Though the said first advertisement was clearly stipulated the qualification of D.Ed. and even though the petitioner was not holding the said qualification, she applied in pursuance of the said advertisement for the post of Primary teacher (Telugu) on the basis of the aforesaid first advertisement. The petitioner was selected and appointed on 17.11.1993 temporarily as untrained teacher as admittedly she was not holding the qualification of D.Ed. The aforesaid temporary appointment was continued only once. It appears that thereafter the Management issued a fresh advertisement which can be said to be 'second advertisement' inviting applications from untrained teacher, means the candidate who do not have qualification of D.Ed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has also applied on the basis of second advertisement but could not get herself selected. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by way of this petition on the ground that the second advertisement by which the applications were invited for appointing untrained teachers, is arbitrary and illegal as the petitioner was already appointed as untrained teacher and instead of continuing her as untrained teacher, the said advertisement should not have been issued for appointing untrained teachers. It is not in dispute that the temporary order given to the petitioner was not extended after about six months and thereafter subsequent advertisement was given. 3. It is not in dispute that the temporary order given to the petitioner was not extended after about six months and thereafter subsequent advertisement was given. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has raised her grievance to the effect that the Department should not have issued second advertisement and instead should have continued the petitioner as untrained teacher as she was already selected earlier. 4. Mr. P. D. Meghe, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per the practice of the Department if trained teacher is not available, untrained teacher can be appointed and such untrained teacher is required to acquire qualification of D.E.d within a span of five years of such appointment. We have heard learned counsel at length. In our view, the grievance raised by the petitioner has no substance. It is not in dispute that even though the first advertisement on which basis the petitioner was selected, was an advertisement issued for trained teacher. It is not mentioned in the said advertisement that even if trained teacher is not available for appointment, untrained teacher will be appointed. Though the petitioner was not qualified to apply on the basis of the first advertisement yet she applied and she was given temporary order of appointment for six months. The petitioner also, in the meanwhile, had not acquired the requisite D.Ed. qualification and even as on today, she has not acquired the said qualification. The petitioner thereafter applied when the fresh advertisement of untrained teacher was published. She applied on the basis of said advertisement, but she failed. It is required to be noted that if the first advertisement was invited for untrained teacher and if the petitioner was selected on the basis of the same, naturally the grievance made by the petitioner can be said to be of substance. It is undisputed fact that by first advertisement, applications were invited from the trained teachers and the petitioner though was not a trained teacher, applied and was given temporary appointment as an untrained teacher. It is required to be noted that many untrained teachers /other candidates might not have applied on the basis of such an advertisement as applications were invited from trained teachers. It is required to be noted that many untrained teachers /other candidates might not have applied on the basis of such an advertisement as applications were invited from trained teachers. If the person who might not have applied on the basis of such advertisement on the ground that they were untrained teachers may be subjected to injustice as naturally a person can be misguided by such advertisement. We are of the view that the Department has shown sympathy towards the petitioner by appointing her as untrained teacher even though the advertisement was only for trained teacher. The petitioner was, therefore, given a tenure appointment and subsequently given an opportunity to apply on the basis of appropriate advertisement regarding untrained teachers. The petitioner having appeared on the basis of second advertisement and having failed in it has challenged the non-selection by way of this Writ Petition. The petitioner has not joined selected candidates who have been selected on the basis of second advertisement as party-respondents. In our view, since the first advertisement was in connection with trained teachers, the petitioner could not and was not eligible even to apply and she could not have been selected. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any right on the basis of such advertisement. It is required to be noted that when the first advertisement was in connection with trained teachers naturally the untrained persons were not required to apply and many untrained teachers might not have applied on the basis of advertisement of trained teachers. The petitioner, therefore, cannot take advantage simply because she was selected and appointed for temporary period as untrained teacher even though the advertisement was for a trained teacher i.e. the first advertisement. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India and others reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 , in our view, the application of the petitioner could not have been considered which was de hors the advertisement. We accordingly do not find any substance in the petition. The petition being sans merit deserve dismissal, which we direct. 5. Rule discharged.