ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has sought appointment as Para Teacher in Government Upper Middle School, Hethbarga under Gola Block of District Ramgarh on the strength of a decision taken by the Village Education Committee at Annexure-1 dated 23.10.2008. 3. The respondents have in their counter affidavit taken a plea that Aam Sabha of the village was never convened and did not recommend the name of the petitioner as is the requirement. Petitioner was directly selected by the Village Education Committee and also did not produce academic testimonials. Therefore, his name was not sent to the Block Education Committee nor was it approved. Petitioner had also approached the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh in 2010 for payment of honorarium and approval of his name as Para Teacher. On examination, petitioner has already been indicated that he was not selected in accordance with the guidelines of Jharkhand Education Project nor his name was approved by the Block Level Committee and he did not have requisite training for such selection. Accordingly, his claim was rejected vide letter no. 257 dated 1.9.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that untenable pleas are being taken by the respondents to refuse the petitioner's claim as his case was duly considered by the Village Education Committee on 23.10.2008 itself. 5. From the facts pleaded and submission of the parties, it appears that though such selection was undertaken by the Village Education Committee, but petitioner's selection was never approved by the Block Education Committee nor he joined before 31.3.2010 even though he was not having any Teachers Training qualification. After 1.4.2010, in view of the coming into force of the N.C.T.E guidelines dated 23.8.2010, no appointment as Para Teacher could be approved if the incumbent had not obtained Teachers Training qualification. 6. In such circumstances, when there is an irregularity in the selection process as made out by the respondents and the petitioner does not have the mandatory Teachers Training qualification, claim for appointment cannot be sustained. Petitioner also does not seem to have challenged the order of his rejection as indicated in the counter affidavit through letter no. 257 dated 1.9.2010 in the writ petition. Accordingly, no grounds are made out for interference in the writ petition. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly.