JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, prayer has been made for direction to the respondents for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment as Para Teacher under the Jharkhand Education Project Scheme, and for setting aside Annexure-2, the order dated 27.09.2007 passed in the Resolution No. 5 by the Gram Shiksha Samittee, Mathurapur and consider the case of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts, as averred in the writ application, is that the petitioner along with others applied for appointment as Para Teacher and the Gram Shiksha Samittee held a meeting on 20.08.2007 for selection of 2nd Para Teacher in 'Abhiyan Vidyalaya, Dhobi Tola, Mathurapur' in the district of Chatra. Five candidates submitted their Bio-Data with educational qualification before the Gram Shiksha Samittee but the selection was not done in accordance with procedure, therefore, selection was cancelled on 20.08.2007 and the respondent no. 7 was selected by the Gram Shiksha Samittee. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred objection before the concerned authority for illegal selection in upgraded school but the objection was not considered. Being aggrieved by the selection of respondent no. 7, the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 and also on behalf of respondent no. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 it has been submitted that a meeting of Village Education Committee of Upgraded Primary School, Dhobitola, Mathurapur was held on 20.08.2007 for selection of Para Teacher in the said school for which five candidates had submitted their application. It has been further stated that petitioner was absent on the date of selection and therefore candidature of petitioner and one another candidate namely Alok Kumar Pathak was rejected by the Village Education Committee of the School in question. It has been further stated that after rejection of candidature of the petitioner and Alok Kumar Pathak, three candidates having the equivalent academical degree remained as candidate for selection as Para Teacher amongst which one candidate was to be selected. As per the letter no. It has been further stated that after rejection of candidature of the petitioner and Alok Kumar Pathak, three candidates having the equivalent academical degree remained as candidate for selection as Para Teacher amongst which one candidate was to be selected. As per the letter no. 471 dated 08.06.2005 of the Jharkhand Education Project, in case of equivalent/identical qualification of the candidates, female candidate was to be selected and accordingly, Manju Kumari has been selected by the Village Education Committee, Dhobitola, Mathurapur, Pratappur as evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has been further stated that the representation of the petitioner was also heard in the meeting of Block Level Education Committee under the Chairmanship of Block Development Officer, Pratappur on 31.12.2008. All the members of the Village Education Committee, Dhobitola was also invited to attend the meeting on 06.01.2009, however all the members could not come in the said meeting. Again the next meeting was fixed on 24.03.2009 to resolve the issue by the Block Level Committee. On the basis of the proceeding dated 20.08.2007 the matter was again discussed in the meeting held on 24.03.2009. All the members agreed in selection of Manju Kumari as Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School, Dhobitola, Mathurapur, Pratappur. Accordingly, the name of respondent no. 7 has been approved by the Block Level Committee meeting held on 08.07.2009 vide Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 7 it has been contended that a general meeting of Village Education Committee was held on 20.08.2007 for appointment of Para Teacher in the school in question. Four applicants including the petitioner were present in the meeting dated 27.09.2007. The name of Alok Kumar Pathak and the petitioner were not considered as they were not present in the meeting dated 20.08.2007. The respondent no. 7 was given preference as being only female candidate among available three candidates, all having equal educational qualification. The Village Education Committee recommended the name of respondent no. 7 for selection as Para Teacher in the aforesaid School and requested the Block Education Committee to approve the same. After selection of the respondent no. The respondent no. 7 was given preference as being only female candidate among available three candidates, all having equal educational qualification. The Village Education Committee recommended the name of respondent no. 7 for selection as Para Teacher in the aforesaid School and requested the Block Education Committee to approve the same. After selection of the respondent no. 7 the Village Education Committee sent no objection certificate and the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Chatra directed the Secretary/President of Village Education Committee to send newly selected Para Teacher with no objection certificate in 15 days residential training from 17.11.2008 to 01.12.2008 in Middle School, Pathalgadda. The respondent no. 7 pursuant to the aforesaid direction, joined 15 days training and completed the same on 01.12.2008 and the Block Education Extension Officer, Itkhori, Pathalgadda relieved respondent No. 7 on 01.12.2008 after completion of 15 days residential training. After completion of residential training respondent no. 7 is working in Upgraded Primary School, Mathurapur and her appointment on the post of Para Teacher has already been approved. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that since the appointment of the respondent no. 7 has been made after following due procedure of law, the same does not require any interference by this Hon'ble Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that selection of respondent no. 7 is assailable on the ground that the petitioner having better qualification ought to have been selected but the respondents by showing favouritism and nepotism has selected the respondent no. 7 in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. As against the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. for the State and Mr. S.K. Sharma for the respondent no. 7 have assiduously submitted that proper procedure has been followed for selection of Para Teacher and the petitioner is estopped to challenge the selection of respondent no. 7 on the ground that on the date of selection of Para Teacher, the petitioner was absent on 20.08.2007. Since the petitioner was absent on 20.08.2007 in the meeting of the Village Education Committee, the case of the petitioner was not considered, therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in recommending the name of respondent No. 7 for selection as Para Teacher. 7. Since the petitioner was absent on 20.08.2007 in the meeting of the Village Education Committee, the case of the petitioner was not considered, therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in recommending the name of respondent No. 7 for selection as Para Teacher. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the selection of respondent no. 7 on the ground that the Village Education Committee in its meeting considered the eligibility of candidates on 27.09.2007 and the case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that he was absent on 20.08.2007 and the selection of the respondent no. 7 has been made amongst three candidates having equal educational qualification. The respondent no. 7 being a female candidate was given preference and accordingly, the Village Education Committee recommended the name of respondent No. 7 and subsequently selection of respondent No. 7 has been duly approved. 8. In the meantime, almost one decade has been elapsed since selection of respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 7 has rendered a considerable length of service hence it would be unjust and inequitable at this distant of time to set at naught the selection of respondent no. 7 which would cause irretrievable injustice to the respondent no. 7. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be acceded to and this Court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.