JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents forthwith, not to give the effect of appointment of respondent no.6 as Para Teacher, since it is contrary to rule of the Government and further prayer is for direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the said post. 2. The brief facts, leading for filing of the writ application, is that in the selection process for appointment to the post of Para Teachers, respondent no.6 was selected, though she did not fulfil the requirements and she was less qualified than the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent no.6, the petitioner submitted representations and in response to the representation, enquiry was conducted and in the copy of the enquiry report dated 25.05.2007 certain irregularities have been surfaced so far selection of para teacher is concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted several representations to the authorities which failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved thereof the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3. In the counter affidavit it has been inter alia submitted that as per the norms laid down by the order of State Programme Director vide letter dated 08.06.2005 the candidate must be resident of that village in which school is situated for which para teachers was to be selected and the qualification of the candidate was to be at least Intermediate pass. Since the petitioner is not a resident of village Phokhraha Kallan, he was not entitled for appointment to the post of para teacher in the new Primary School, Pokhara Kallan, Daltonganj. It has further been submitted that as per the letter dated 08.06.2005 issued by the State Programme Director, Jharkhand Education Project in its para (Ka) it is clearly mentioned that priority was to be given for engagement as para teacher to those candidates who resides in the village where the school is situated. It has further been submitted that as per the letter dated 08.06.2005 issued by the State Programme Director, Jharkhand Education Project in its para (Ka) it is clearly mentioned that priority was to be given for engagement as para teacher to those candidates who resides in the village where the school is situated. Since the respondent no.6 fulfilled the criteria, she has rightly been appointed to the post of para teacher in the school, copy of the letter dated 08.06.2005 issued by the State Programme Director is annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted in the counter affidavit that the enquiry report of the Deputy Superintendent of Education, Palamau is not correct. As per the Voter list the name of the petitioner is at serial no.1408 of Ward-2 in the municipal area of Daltonganj, Palamau, which clearly shows that the petitioner is not resident of village-Pokhra Kallan (Matapurhi) as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the respondent no.6 has fulfilled all the criteria for engagement to the post of para teacher in new Primary School, Pokhra Kallan (Matapurhi) as she is a Schedule Tribe lady having qualification of Intermediate pass and permanent resident of village Pokhra Kallan (Matapurhi). Respondent no.6 has been selected by the Aam Sabha and her name was approved by the Block Level Committee as well as District Level Committee. Accordingly, she has been engaged to the post of para teacher of the said Primary School. It has further been submitted in the counter affidavit that in view of the promulgation of R.T.E Act, 2009 with effect from 01.04.2010, no untrained candidate can be selected to the post of para teacher. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.6, repudiating the contentions made in the writ application. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.6 moreover reiterates the submission made by the learned counsel for the State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the selection of the respondent no.6 is liable to be interfered with on the ground that the petitioner is having higher qualification compared to respondent no.6 and as per enquiry report, petitioner belongs to Tola Matpurhi but the respondent no.6 has been selected. Hence, the action of the respondents smacks of arbitrary exercise of power and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the action of the respondents smacks of arbitrary exercise of power and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit and submitted that in view of the guidelines for selection of para teachers, the case of the respondent no.6 has been considered and she has been selected and therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity and illegality by the respondents in selecting the respondent no.6 on the said post. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that Smt. Gayatri Devi -respondent no.6 has been selected by the Aam Sabha and her name was approved by the Block Level Committee as well as District Level Committee and accordingly she is continuing till today. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records and in view of the categorical submission made in the counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection of respondent no.6. Apart from that the respondent no.6 has been continuing on the said post for more than one decade, therefore, it would be iniquitous to delve into the selection of respondent no.6 in the absence of any foundational facts so as to warrant any interference. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.