JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of order of termination from service contained in Memo dated 20.02.2017. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that without a show-cause notice and a regular departmental enquiry she could not have been terminated from service. 3. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 03/Garhwa/2015 published in the newspaper on 09.07.2015 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers and Graduate Trained Teachers, the petitioner was selected for appointment as Graduate Trained Teacher. Under the advertisement necessary qualifications for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher were; Graduate or its equivalent and two years'' Diploma in Elementary Education, or Graduate with minimum 50% marks or its equivalent and one year''s B.Ed. decree in Elementary Education, or any other qualification as provided under Rule 4([k)(ii) of the Jharkhand Elementary Teacher Appointment Rules 2012. Under Clause 15 of the advertisement, 50% advertised posts were earmarked for Para-Teachers who had worked for two years continuously under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan run by the Jharkhand Education Project Council; other 50% posts were meant for non Para-Teacher candidates. The petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualifications and she has been appointed as Graduate Trained Teacher on merits. 4. Only stand taken by the respondents which is reflected in the impugned order dated 20.02.2017 is that in view of the Jharkhand Elementary Teacher Appointment Rules, 2014 (1st amendment) the petitioner cannot be appointed on a post earmarked for Para-Teacher candidates. However, it remains uncontroverted that before the petitioner was terminated from service no show-cause notice was issued to her. May be appointment of the petitioner is provisional, for two years, this period of two years is on probation, but the fact remains that she has been appointed on a permanent sanctioned vacant post and subject to her confirmation in service for all practical purposes she is a permanent employee. She has worked for more than one year; she was appointed on 14.12.2015 and order of termination has been issued on 20.02.2017. 5. The petitioner has asserted that she is otherwise eligible for appointment and when sufficient number of eligible Para-Teachers under "C" category were not found eligible, she alongwith others were appointed against the post earmarked for Para-Teacher candidates. The office order dated 20.02.2017 seems to admit the aforesaid position. It reads : 6. 5. The petitioner has asserted that she is otherwise eligible for appointment and when sufficient number of eligible Para-Teachers under "C" category were not found eligible, she alongwith others were appointed against the post earmarked for Para-Teacher candidates. The office order dated 20.02.2017 seems to admit the aforesaid position. It reads : 6. Evidently, petitioner''s appointment as a Graduate Trained Teacher was not illegal and even if the provision under the Amended Rules of 2014 was not followed, she cannot be terminated from service. A mere irregularity and, that too, which does not pertain to essential qualifications would not render the appointment illegal. Another aspect of the matter is that there was no separate or different qualification prescribed for the Para-Teacher category candidates, rather those candidates were also required to resign from the post of Para-Teacher. 7. In the above facts, termination of the petitioner from service without a show-cause notice must be held illegal and accordingly, it is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled for continuity in service and salary for the period she has actually worked for which the District Superintendent of Education shall pass an order after verifying the records including the attendance register. 8. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.