ORDER : 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Siksha Dut of Up-Graded Primary School, Damodarganj, Nala, Jamtara, considering the fact that the petitioner has been duly selected and engaged for working as Siksha Dut. During the pendency of the writ petition, in view of the amendment dated 04.01.2012, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of termination dated 22.12.2006 passed by Gram Sikha Samiti whereby a decision has been taken to terminate the Matriculate teacher from Up-graded Primary School, Damodarganj, as per departmental rule. 2. The facts as have been described are that the petitioner after passing Matriculation Examination in the year 1997 was selected by the Village Level Committee to teach the children of Damodarganj Primary School in the year 2003 as Sikcha Dut. Thereafter the petitioner continued to discharge the duties as such to the utmost satisfaction of the respondent authorities. After coming to know from the newspaper item from Prabhat Khabar that the minimum qualification prescribed for continuation on the said post is Intermediate, the petitioner made an application before the District Education of Superintendent, Jamtara-cum- District Programme Officer to permit her to appear in the Intermediate Examination upto 2007 and the petitioner also passed the said examination on 31.05.2007. Thereafter the petitioner intimated the District Education Superintendent regarding completion of her Intermediate Examination. The Block Development Officer, Nala, issued a letter dated 02.11.2007 regarding Para Teachers of Up-Graded Primary School, Damodarganj and the petitioner was asked to offer her explanation to the queries as has been pointed out in the said letter, vide Annexure – 5 to the writ petition and vide Annexure – 6 to the writ petition, the petitioner submitted her reply. Thereafter without any rhyme and reason, the account of the petitioner was withheld and the petitioner was subjected to harassment. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents and the order of termination dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Gram Siksha Samittee, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Thereafter without any rhyme and reason, the account of the petitioner was withheld and the petitioner was subjected to harassment. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents and the order of termination dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Gram Siksha Samittee, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein factum of selection of letter dated 11.08.2003 has been annexed as Annexure – R/1 and the name of the petitioner has been recommended to the District Level Committee as her name stood at serial no.68, as is evident from Annexure – R/2 to the rejoinder affidavit. R/3 to the rejoinder affidavit would go to show as to the complaint made by local persons/villagers against the selection of the petitioner by the New Committee. The petitioner was asked to show cause. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted vehemently that the petitioner was duly selected by the Village Education Committee and recommended to the District Level Committee and the impugned letter of termination dated 22.12.2006 issued by the respondent authorities without any show cause is not legally tenable. Learned counsel further submits that when the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, vide R/3 dated 21.09.2007 to the rejoinder affidavit, it would be evident that the service of the petitioner was terminated, vide order of termination dated 22.12.2006. 5. Controverting the submissions made in the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.3. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that on perusal of the proceedings dated 22.12.2006 of Gram Siksha Samittee, it is amply clear that being Matriculate, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Siksha Dut and hence the claim for her continuance on the said post does not arise. Further, Government has decided to absorb only those candidates who are having the qualification of Intermediate, the copy of the proceedings dated 22.12.2006 has been annexed as Annexure – A to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the Gram Siksha Samittee has decided in the Aam Sabha dated 17.05.2007 to select two Para Teachers namely Sri Prabhakar Mahto and Rina Ghosh who have joined and have been working since the date of their joining, as is evident from Annexure – B to the counter affidavit. 6. It has further been submitted that the Gram Siksha Samittee has decided in the Aam Sabha dated 17.05.2007 to select two Para Teachers namely Sri Prabhakar Mahto and Rina Ghosh who have joined and have been working since the date of their joining, as is evident from Annexure – B to the counter affidavit. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.3, wherein it has been submitted that ignoring the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulation, 2001, which has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner was selected, therefore it was brought to the notice of Gram Siksha Samittee, then a Gram Sabha was convened on 22.12.2006, in which it was unanimously decided by the Aam Sabha that since the petitioner was only Matriculate, she did not have the appropriate qualification required for the aforesaid post. It has further been submitted that it is the Gram Sabha which is empowered to select the Siksha Doot now Para Teacher and it is the Gram Sabha only which is empowered to remove the Siksha Dut/Para Teacher and since the Gram Siksha Samiti of the village – Damodarganj has decided, in view of the Government decisions and circular, that the Siksha Dut/Para Teacher who are having the qualification of Intermediate are entitled to continue on the aforesaid post and since the petitioner did not acquire the required qualification for the post of Siksha Dut/Para Teacher within the prescribed period, the Gram Siksha Samiti rightly removed the petitioner from the post of Siksha Dut, which was approved by the competent authority. 7. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.6, JEPC, wherein it has been stated that the National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulation, 2001, dated 03.09.2001 clearly stipulates that a person must possess Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent and certificate in Physical Education for a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent and the petitioner did not possess the required qualification at the time of appointment for the post in question, copy of the said regulation has been annexed as Annexure – A to the said supplemeary affidavit. Annexure – B, which is the letter dated 30.01.2004, in which qualification for appointment as per Regulation, 2001 has been mentioned. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner being a Matriculate was appointed on the post of Siskha Dut but as per the National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulation, 2001,the petitioner should have been Intermediate and the petitioner acquired the qualification of Intermediate in 2007 but prior to acquiring the qualification of Intermediate, the petitioner was terminated, vide order dated 22.12.2006 and as disclosed in the counter affidavit, two persons namely Sri Prabhakar Mahto and Rina Ghosh were appointed by the decision of the Gram Siskha Samiti in the Aam Sabha dated 17.05.2007 and they have been working on the said posts. Since the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Para Teacher was in contravention of the National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulation, 2001, no illegality or infirmity has been committed in dispensing with the services of the petitioner because the petitioner did not have the minimum educational qualification required for the said post inspite of her appointment on the said post. Moreover, with effect from 1st April, 2010, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been brought into effect. As per this Act, National Council For Teachers Education (NCTE) is the prescribed authority and now the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) as well as B.Ed. is made compulsory. In view of the changed scenario, unless a teacher qualifies in TET having B.Ed. qualification, he/she would not be entitled to selection. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition and as such, there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner. The writ petition, thus, stands dismissed. Petitions dismissed.