JUDGMENT : NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J. Heard Sri Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, who happens to be the unsuccessful writ petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Writ petitioner appellant had been appointed as Siksha Mitra in the year 2004. Subsequently, in 2006 she was absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. She was then dismissed allegedly even without notice in the year 2008 on the ground that she got her appointment as Siksha Mitra on basis of matriculation from Bihar School Examination Board and Madhyama certificate granted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which she claimed was equivalent to Intermediate. She was dismissed because for being selected as Siksha Mitra, the minimum eligibility criteria was Intermediate. Regarding Madhyama qualification, this Court has repeatedly held that the certificate granted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not a recognized equivalent thereof. Thus, on this admission itself writ petitioner-appellant lack basic eligibility criteria. It is then submitted on the strength of the judgment of this Court in the case of Nutan Kumari Vs. State of Bihar and others since reported in 2013(3) BLJ PHC- 15 that she had subsequently also done Intermediate course from Bihar Intermediate Education Council and, therefore, she had acquired the proficiency required. We are afraid, we cannot accept such submission. In the case of Nutan Kumari(supra) before action to dismiss was taken she had acquired eligibility qualification and, therefore, the Court took a sympathetic view of the matter, whereas in this case admittedly the writ petitioner-appellant passed her Intermediate examination long after her dismissal for being ineligible for selection as Siksha Mitra on the day when she was selected or on the day when she was dismissed. She on her own showing was ineligible. If that be so then we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.