ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who was appointed on contract basis as a Para Teacher in Nav Prathmik Vidyalaya Satgachi, Adivasitola, Barharwa, Sahibganj by office order dated 9th April 2010 (Annexure-3), has been terminated by the impugned order passed on 21st February 2011 (Annexure-4) by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Sahibganj. 3. The ground for termination of the petitioner's appointment is that the petitioner had got lesser marks of 49% in Intermediate than other persons at serial nos. 3, 6 and 8 in the panel from which the Village Education Committee had made recommendation for appointment of the petitioner which is not in accordance with the Rules. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the guidelines for selection and appointment of Para Teacher as laid down in the Instruction dated 8th June 2005 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) does not lay down that the selection has to be made on consideration of inter se merit among the persons having the same qualification. Guidelines only lays down the eligibility criteria under which if the incumbent and other candidates holds the same qualification, the Village Education Committee has the discretion to make the recommendation in favour of one or the other candidate, which has been done in the present case. It has been submitted that the Block Level Education Committee also approved the recommendation of the Village Education Committee made on 22nd August 2009. The petitioner had also worked for one year as a teacher in the same school earlier which was the basis for such recommendation made by the Village Education Committee. The impugned order cancelling the petitioner's appointment after having served for less than one year on the post of Para Teacher in the said school, is therefore illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines. 5. The respondent's contention is that under Sarv Siksha Abhiyan conducted in all elementary schools, the Village Education Committee has been constituted by the Department of Education which has to recommend the candidate for appointment on the post of Para Teacher amongst the eligible persons in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Department, one of which is annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 8th June 2005. The petitioner's case was recommended by the Village Education Committee, though he was having lesser marks in Intermediate than other candidates in the panel being guided by the consideration that he had served for one year earlier satisfactorily as a Para Teacher in the same school. However, the matter was inquired into after contractual appointment of the petitioner on 9th April 2010 and it was found that other persons who were having higher marks in Intermediate at serial nos. 3, 6 and 8 have been ignored in making recommendation in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that even otherwise, any appointment of untrained Para Teacher made after 01st April 2010 without following the mandate of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been ordered to be cancelled. However, such letter dated 18th March 2011 has been issued after issuance of the impugned order. Counsel for the respondent State submits that a perusal of the guidelines (Anenxure-A to the counter affidavit) does not make out any case that ignoring the inter se merit amongst the candidate in the panel, the Village Education Committee can make the recommendation of a person who is having lesser marks in that category. There are no criteria prescribed in the guidelines under which, consideration for experience as a Para Teacher earlier is to be taken into account. Therefore, the impugned order which cancelled the contractual appointment made in contravention of the guidelines, does not deserve to be interfered in the writ jurisdiction by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was having 49% marks in Intermediate while certain other candidates in the same panel at serial nos. 3, 6 and 8 were having higher marks. However, name of the petitioner was recommended by the Village Education Committee and subsequently approved by the Block Level Education Committee as well, being guided by the consideration that the petitioner had served for one year as a Para Teacher. 3, 6 and 8 were having higher marks. However, name of the petitioner was recommended by the Village Education Committee and subsequently approved by the Block Level Education Committee as well, being guided by the consideration that the petitioner had served for one year as a Para Teacher. A perusal of the guidelines dated 08th June 2005 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) in totality, does not however support the contention of the petitioner that even though, in the same category and having same qualification, persons may be having higher marks, still the name of the petitioner having lesser marks could be recommended and approved as a Para Teacher. This interpretation would be directly in teeth of the Right to equality granted in matters of public employment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India under which inter se merit has to be observed in the case of appointments made under the State or its instrumentality and would render the decision arbitrary. The appointment appears to have been made after 01st April 2010 from which date the untrained teachers could not have been appointed in view of coming into force of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned order whereby the contractual appointment of the petitioner has been terminated. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Petitioner Dismissed