JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2012 passed by the Writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46336 of 2012, Seema Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the aforesaid writ petition had been dismissed. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant herein applied for consideration of her candidature for appointment as part time teacher (Art and Music). In terms of the advertisement, the incumbent was required to be trained graduate. After selection proceedings, the District Basic Education Officer with concurrence of the District Magistrate issued letter of appointment to the petitioner-appellant. As per terms and conditions of appointment letter, her appointment was temporary and in case her work and conduct was not found satisfactory, her services were liable to be terminated without any notice. It was also provided that honorarium was payable to her only after verification of her educational testimonials. 3. It appears that on verification of the testimonials, it was found that the petitioner-appellant was not at all a trained graduate, hence a show-cause notice was given to her. She preferred to challenge the same in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22487 of 2012, which was disposed of directing the authority concerned to take a decision in the matter. Subsequently, her appointment was thereafter cancelled by order dated 7.6.2012. The aforesaid writ petition No. 46366 of 2012 was preferred by her challenging the order dated 7.6.2012, which was dismissed by the Writ Court vide its impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2012. 4. For ready reference the relevant extract of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2012 reads thus : “Petitioner has rushed to this Court with request to quash the order dated 7.6.2012, wherein District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi has proceeded to pass order mentioning therein that the petitioner had been selected as part time teacher (Art and Music) and when verification proceedings have been undertaken, then it has been reflected that the petitioner was not at all eligible to be selected, as minimum eligibility criteria is not being fulfilled by her. On show-cause notice being issued on 4.4.2012, petitioner filed writ petition No. 22487 of 2012, wherein this Court asked the authority concerned to take decision in the matter. On show-cause notice being issued on 4.4.2012, petitioner filed writ petition No. 22487 of 2012, wherein this Court asked the authority concerned to take decision in the matter. Thereafter decision has been taken cancelling her candidature. Sri Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case appointment in question had been made with the concurrence of the District Magistrate, as such the District Basic Education Officer has no authority to cancel the appointment so made, and coupled with this petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria, as such action taken is bad. Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel as well as Sri Jayram Pandey, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner lacks minimum eligibility criteria, as such the District Basic Education Officer has rightly cancelled her candidature. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation which has so emerged in the present case, is that the petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature for appointment as part time teacher (Art & Music). As per advertisement, the incumbent was required to be trained graduate. Selection proceedings were finalized, whereupon with due concurrence of the District Magistrate, the District Basic Education Officer proceeded to issue appointment letter to the petitioner. As per terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the appointment in question was temporary and in case work and conduct of the incumbent was not found satisfactory, same was liable to be terminated without any notice, and honourarium was to be ensured only verification of educational testimonials. On verification being conducted, it was found that the petitioner was not at all trained graduate, and in view of this show-cause notice was given to her and thereafter her candidature has been cancelled. The argument, that the District Basic Education Officer has no authority to cancel the appointment, is misconceived, for the simple reason that once the District Basic Education Officer had proceeded to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, then the District Basic Education Officer has every authority to vary, rescind or modify the aforesaid appointment letter, specially when honourarium has to be ensured to the incumbent only after verification of the educational testimonials. In verification proceeding the record of the petitioner has been examined and it has been found that the petitioner has got no training qualification to her credit. In verification proceeding the record of the petitioner has been examined and it has been found that the petitioner has got no training qualification to her credit. Petitioner is contending before this Court that apart from her graduate degree, she has got to her credit certificate in Drawing Grade Examination issued by Directorate of Art & Chairman, Art Examination Committee, Maharashtra State Mumbai. Said certificate, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated with training qualification. Once such is the factual situation that the petitioner lacks minimum eligibility criteria, then the decision taken cannot be faulted. In view of the above facts, writ petition is dismissed.” 5. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2012 passed by the Writ Court is challenged on the ground that the fact escaped from the notice of the Court that under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 the subject of Art has not been specified, hence qualification of teacher (Art and Music) has to be the qualification as provided under the regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921; that the Writ Court returned no finding regarding information which was sought by the appellant from the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board for qualification of Assistant Teacher in the subject of Art and Music; that the Writ Court has failed to take into consideration the generality of acquisition of trained graduate as a qualification sine-qua-non for the purpose of recruitment of Assistant Teacher (Art & Music) as mentioned in the advertisement for the purpose of recruitment to be an essential qualification and that said qualification was not either in consonance with the provisions of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 or the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Writ Court has failed to take into consideration that as the petitioner had passed Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination (I.G.D.), there was no requirement of an incumbent to be a trained teacher for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Teacher in the Art and Music which is recognized only at High School level for appointment as Assistant Teacher where Basic Education in subject of Art or any other subject is not recognized. It is stated that this very important aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Writ Court while passing the impugned order dated 12.8.2012. It is stated that this very important aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Writ Court while passing the impugned order dated 12.8.2012. Lastly, it is submitted that in any view of the matter the impugned order dated 12.9.2012 of the Writ Court affirming the order dated 7.6.2012 passed by the District Basic Education Officer is unsustainable, unrealistic and unreasoned in the eye of law and as such is liable to be quashed. 7. Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the private respondents and the learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have supported the findings recorded by the Writ Court in the impugned judgment and submits that no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned has been shown by the petitioner, hence no interference is required by this Court. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the appointment of the appellant was made pursuant to an advertisement as part time teacher in the college in question. In the writ petition she had prayed for the following reliefs. I.”Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 7.6.2012 issued by the respondent No. 5, which is contained as Annexure-7 to this writ petition ; II.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the column 3 of the above said impugned advertisement dated 2.11.2011 published in daily newspaper Dainik Jagran which is contained as Annexure-1 to this writ petition in which the educational qualification mentioned Trained Graduate against the column 2 with respect to petitioner only ; III.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner function on the post of part time Art Teacher in Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Vidyalya, Nevada, Kaushambi, during the pendency of the writ petition ; IV.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release the arrears of the salary and salary of the petitioner time to time which falls due continuously ; V.Issue any other suitable order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; VI.To award the cost of writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” 9. It appears that on verification of educational testimonials of the appellant it was found that she was not having requisite qualification for the post in question as advertised. However, she accepted the appointment with open eyes without even a murmur and rushed to this Court and challenged the advertisement as well as the order dated 7.6.2012 by which her services were terminated, praying that the respondents may be directed to permit her to function as a part time teacher in Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Vidyalya, Nevada, Kaushambi and make payment of her salary. 10. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and in our opinion, the appellant-petitioner on one hand, cannot take advantage of advertisement for appointment and on the other hand, challenge the advertisement. After verification of her educational testimonials she has been found to be unqualified for the post. Hence, she cannot now turn around now and challenge the advertisement as well as the order of termination passed on the ground that she was ineligible for appointment for the post in question. It is always open to the college to invite applications from the candidates who are eligible and having better qualifications than the minimum qualifications prescribed in the statute itself. The petitioner was found ineligible for appointment on the post in question, hence her appointment has rightly been cancelled by the authority. 11. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2012 of the Writ Court dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner and affirming the order dated 7.6.2012 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. —————