JUDGMENT : The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5870 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order dated 18.10.2019, whereby, the appointment of the writ petitioner has been declared illegal stating therein that on the date of his compassionate appointment, he was having no required qualification for the post of Intermediate trained teacher as per Rule, 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- The writ petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in place of his mother and has been appointed as Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground on 23.12.2013 in the Middle School, Kothar, Ramgarh. It is the case of the writ petitioner that by virtue of an amendment brought in the provision of Rule 11 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012 vide notification no.1533 dated 31.07.2014, wherein, the grade pay scale of the teachers who were appointed for teaching of Class-I-V and the teachers who were appointed for teaching of Class VI-VIII have been isolated and basic scale of the teachers who were appointed for Class I-V of Rs.9300-34800 and grade pay scale of Rs.4200 and the basic scale of the teachers who were appointed for Class VI-VIII, was of Rs.9300-34800 and grade pay scale of Rs.4600. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that he has completed B.Ed. in the year, 2012 from Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and has qualified in the Teachers Eligibility Test-2013 as Assistant Teacher for Class-VI-VIII. The writ petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground after taking into consideration the eligibility of the writ petitioner but appointed as Intermediate Trained Teacher and as such, the writ petitioner has made a representation requesting therein to adjust him for teaching of Class VI-VIII and revise his grade pay scale on the basis of notification no.1533 dated 31.07.2014. The writ petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground after taking into consideration the eligibility of the writ petitioner but appointed as Intermediate Trained Teacher and as such, the writ petitioner has made a representation requesting therein to adjust him for teaching of Class VI-VIII and revise his grade pay scale on the basis of notification no.1533 dated 31.07.2014. The respondent State having taken no action, the writ petitioner was compelled to file writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.4347 of 2016 praying therein for issuance of direction upon the respondents to revise the grade pay scale on the basis of the notification no.1533 dated 31.07.2014, wherein, basic grade pay of the teachers has been amended, as basic pay scale of Rs.9300-34800, grade pay of Rs.4200 for the teachers who have been appointed for the Class I-V and the basic scale of teachers who were appointed for Class VI-VIII was in the Scale of Rs.9300-34800, grade pay of Rs.4600, whereas, the writ petitioner has qualified in the Teachers Eligibility Test2012 as Assistant Teacher for Class-VI-VIII and has been appointed as Science Teacher on 23.12.2013 for teaching of Class I-V. The further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents, after revising the grade pay scale of the writ petitioner to pay the difference of arrears of salary. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2018 with a liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the Secretary of the Department by filing the representation along with the copy of the writ petition and other documents, if so required, and upon receipt of the same, the department concerned, has been directed to take a decision within the stipulated period. The respondent, in terms thereof, has passed an order on 18.10.2019, by which, the appointment of the writ petitioner was declared to be illegal stating therein that on the date of his appointment, the writ petitioner was having no required qualification for the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher as per Rule, 2012 and the department resolution dated 13.05.2013. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has approached to this Court by questioning the decision of the authority dated 18.10.2019. The State has appeared and filed counter affidavit and put the plea about lack of eligibility criteria to hold the said post. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has approached to this Court by questioning the decision of the authority dated 18.10.2019. The State has appeared and filed counter affidavit and put the plea about lack of eligibility criteria to hold the said post. The learned Single Judge, after considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, has dismissed the writ petition, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, reason being that, the writ petitioner was having the requisite qualification and therefore, he has been appointed way back in the year, 2013 as Intermediate Trained Teacher, the post on which, the writ petitioner has rendered his service fairly for a long period but without appreciating that aspect of the matter, when the writ petitioner has claimed for his adjustment in the higher pay scale, his appointment has been cancelled and has been rebutted to the post of Clerk by taking the plea of having no qualification as per the Rule, 2012 and as per resolution no.945 dated 13.05.2013, which cannot be said to be a proper order, since the writ petitioner was having the requisite qualification of TET and has also passed B.Ed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed such submission by taking the plea that to hold the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher, the TET qualification was required for Class I-V, for which, 50 per cent marks in the intermediate examination and two years diploma was required. But, the writ petitioner has passed TET examination for Class VI-VIII and as such, he was having no qualification to hold the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher and therefore, the writ petitioner was considered not fit to hold the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher and as such, the impugned decision was taken. The learned Single Judge after considering the lack of eligibility criteria to hold the said post has refused to interfere with the administrative decision of the authority by dismissing the writ petition and therefore, the same may not be interfered with. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6. The issue which involves in this case is as to whether the writ petitioner was entitled to hold the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher, the post on which the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. 7. This Court, in order to decide the issue, deems it fit and proper to go through the applicable Rule and resolution no.945 dated 13.05.2013. It is evident from the Rule-2012 that to hold the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher, the candidate is required to pass TET examination for Class-I-V, having 50 per cent marks in the intermediate examination and two years diploma, for ready reference, the relevant provision of the said Rule reads as under:- ^^oknh dh fu;qfDr dh frfFk fnukad 21-12-2013 gSA bl izdkj fu;qfDr dh frfFk dks izkjafHkd f’k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh&2012 ds vuqlkj ,oa foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&945] fnukad 13-05-2013 ds vuqlkj d{kk 1 ls 5 ds lgk;d f’k{kd ds fy, U;wure vgrkZ fuEuor gS% & ¼v½ U;wure 50 izfr’kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed vFkok blds led{k rFkk izkjafHkd f’k{kk esa f}o"khZ; fMIyksek ¼pkgs mls dksbZ Hkh uke fn;k x;k gks½] vFkok U;wure 45 izfr’kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed vFkok blds led{k ,oa izkjafHkd f’k{kk 'kkL= esa f}o"khZ; fMIyksek ¼pkgs ftl fdlh uke ls tkuk tkrk gks½] tks jk"Vªh; f’k{kk ifj"kn~ ¼ekU;rk] ekun.M vkSj fØ;kfof/k½ fofue;] 2002 ds vuqlkj izkIr fd;k x;k gksA vFkok U;wure 50 izfr’kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed vFkok blds led{k rFkk 4 o"khZ; izkjafHkd f’k{kk 'kkL= esa Lukrd ¼ch0,y0,M0½] vFkok U;wure 50 izfr’kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed vFkok blds led{k rFkk f’k{kk 'kkL= ¼fo’ks"k f’k{kk½ esa f}o"khZ; fMIyksek] vFkok Lukrd rFkk izkjafHkd f’k{kk esa f}o"khZ; fMIyksek ¼pkgs ftl fdlh uke ls tkuk tkrk gks½] ,oa ¼c½ jk"Vªh; v/;kid f’k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk fu:fir ekxZn’khZ fl)karksa ds v/khu >kj[k.M ljdkj }kjk d{kk 1 ls 5 ds fy, vk;ksftr v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk ¼Vh0bZ0Vh0½ esa mÙkh.kZ]^^ 8. The admitted position herein is that the writ petitioner was having no said qualification, i.e., 50 per cent marks in the intermediate examination and two years diploma, since, the writ petitioner has got the certificate of teacher eligibility test of Class VI-VIII, while, the requirement for the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher was to have the TET certificate from Class I to V. Further, the writ petitioner was also having lack of qualification, so far as it relates to 50 per cent marks in the intermediate examination and two years diploma. 9. It is the settled position of law that a candidate is entitled to retain the post, if such candidate is having requisite qualification as per the applicable Rule, as quoted and referred hereinabove, the requisite qualification to hold the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher, which admittedly is having not with the writ petitioner, therefore, if the decision has been taken by the State authority for holding the writ petitioner not fit to hold the said post, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 10. Learned Single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter and thereafter has came to the conclusive finding, so there is no reason to interfere with the administrative decision, which according to our considered view, requires no interference. 11. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.