JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who was appointed as Intermediate Trained Teacher, is aggrieved of order dated 04.10.2016 by which his appointment has been terminated. 2. Briefly stated, pursuant to an advertisement dated 08.07.2015 published in the newspaper inviting applications for appointment as Intermediate Trained Teacher, the petitioner who was working as para-teacher submitted his application. Having met the requisite qualifications he made it to the merit list and he was called for counselling on 14.12.2015. Appointment letter was issued to him on 21.12.2015 and his joining was accepted on 08.01.2016. During course of scrutiny of the educational qualifications of the candidates, when it was found that the petitioner was appointed as para-teacher on 10.11.2003, that is, five months before completion of the academic session 2001-04 in which he was admitted as a student of Bachelor of Science, a show-cause was issued to him on 08.08.2016. Responding to the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner asserted that he had appeared in the final examination for Bachelor of Science with permission of the Village Education Committee, however, the District Education Establishment Committee, Simdega observing that the petitioner was not granted permission for enhancing his educational qualification took a decision to terminate his services. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Committee the impugned order dated 04.10.2016 has been issued by the respondent-District Superintendent of Education, Simdega. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Contending that the petitioner who has been appointed through a merit-selection process even during the period of probation cannot be terminated from service by merely issuing a show-cause notice in which the allegation does not pertain to breach of any of the conditions provided under appointment letter dated 21.12.2015, Mr. Prabhat Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise also once qualification of the petitioner as on the date of his appointment as para-teacher or an Intermediate Trained Teacher is not challenged, the impugned order dated 04.10.2016 is rendered illegal. 4. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, that five months before he would have completed his graduation in the academic session 2001-04 the petitioner suppressing this fact tendered his joining as para-teacher on 10.11.2003, Mr. Jayant Frenklin Toppo, the learned State counsel submits that the degree of graduation which is an essential educational qualification for appointment as Intermediate Trained Teacher was thus vitiated and therefore petitioner's appointment has rightly been terminated. 5. Jayant Frenklin Toppo, the learned State counsel submits that the degree of graduation which is an essential educational qualification for appointment as Intermediate Trained Teacher was thus vitiated and therefore petitioner's appointment has rightly been terminated. 5. At the time when the petitioner was appointed as para-teacher on 10.11.2003 the minimum qualification for appointment was Intermediate. It is not in dispute that on the date of his selection and appointment as para-teacher the petitioner possessed the requisite educational qualification. It also stands admitted that pursuant to advertisement dated 08.07.2015 when the petitioner submitted his application for the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher he was possessing the requisite educational qualification, that is, graduation, besides other mandatory qualifications. Qualification of the petitioner for his appointment either to the post of para-teacher or as Intermediate Trained Teacher has not been challenged by the respondent-State and, in fact, it could not have been done in the face of the educational qualifications of the petitioner. The petitioner has been appointed as Intermediate Trained Teacher in general category para-teacher and for his new appointment he was required to resign from the post of para-teacher which he did before his joining was accepted on 08.01.2016. Today he finds himself nowhere, evidently for no fault of his. 6. The petitioner has produced a copy of the proceeding of Village Education Committee held on 24.12.2004, in which he was granted permission to appear in the graduation examination. The enquiry conducted by the respondent-District Education Officer, Simdega and the Block Education Extension Officer, Simdega, a copy of which has been produced vide Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit, revealed that the petitioner appeared in the graduation examination with permission of Village Education Committee. The show-cause notice dated 08.08.2016 issued to the petitioner does not indicate breach of any of the conditions contained in letter dated 21.12.2015. May be appointment of the petitioner is provisional and before the period of probation expired he has been issued a show-cause notice, there is no allegation that he has submitted a forged certificate or that the educational qualification acquired by him is not granted by a recognised educational institute. It is also not the case pleaded by the respondents that he has not rendered satisfactory service or that he has been convicted in a criminal case. It is also not the case pleaded by the respondents that he has not rendered satisfactory service or that he has been convicted in a criminal case. Evidently, none of the conditions which may warrant termination from service during the period of probation is satisfied in the case of the petitioner; the conditions for termination are mentioned in the appointment letter. In fact, in view of enquiry report dated 14.07.2016 when it was found that the petitioner was granted permission by the Village Education Committee to appear in the graduation examination, the District Education Establishment Committee found a noble way to terminate the petitioner from service by observing that Village Education Committee has not granted him permission to enhance his educational qualification. If on such frivolous plea a candidate who has been appointed in a merit selection process is terminated from service, it would create uncertainty in the system and if the respondents are permitted to invent such arbitrary grounds, 13 years after the petitioner's appointment as para-teacher, for terminating one from service, it would be antithesis to the rule of law. At the time of his appointment as para-teacher the petitioner was not required to reveal that he at that time was pursuing the graduation course and therefore it cannot be alleged that he has suppressed this information. Degree of graduation awarded to him is a valid degree and not a forged one. Plea taken by the respondents, that the petitioner was not granted permission to enhance his qualification, is apparently frivolous, for such permission to appear in the graduation examination would ultimately lead to the petitioner enhancing his educational qualification. Moreover, the petitioner had no say in use of phraseology by the Village Education Committee and today permission granted to the petitioner cannot be interpreted the way the respondents have tried to interpret. 7. The petitioner has produced his educational certificates pertaining to his educational qualifications and response of the respondents obtained through RTI. These documents unerringly establish that the petitioner was validly appointed on the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher and the decision of District Education Establishment Committee, Simdega dated 30.09.2016 is illegal. Consequently impugned order dated 04.10.2016 is quashed. The District Education Officer, Simdega is directed to accept joining of the petitioner on or before 14.05.2018. 8. Post the matter on 17.05.2018, for compliance. 9. Consequently impugned order dated 04.10.2016 is quashed. The District Education Officer, Simdega is directed to accept joining of the petitioner on or before 14.05.2018. 8. Post the matter on 17.05.2018, for compliance. 9. Let a copy of the order be given to the learned counsels for the parties.