JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 29th November 2022 passed in WP(S) No. 1207 of 2022. The appellant who filed an application for intervention vide I.A. No. 10559 of 2022 is aggrieved by the decision of the writ Court not to join him as a party in the pending writ proceeding. 2. I.A. No. 10559 of 2022 for intervention has been dismissed by the writ Court holding thus: “By filing this interlocutory application, one Ashok Kumar Sahu wants to intervene in this writ petition. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner-Ashish Kumar, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letter in his favour as he has already been selected, to be posted as Trained Graduate Teacher in Makatpur, Jaynagar-Block, Koderma. 3. The decision to appoint the petitioner was taken by the District Establishment Committee, Koderma, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of posting, the appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioner solely on the ground that while the petitioner was working as Para Teacher, he has enhanced his educational qualification. It is an admitted case of the State-respondent and the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Para Teacher, but before joining in the department, he enhanced his educational qualification. Only after enhancement of his educational qualification, he started teaching as a para teacher. It is also an admitted case of the respondent that for the period i.e. date of appointment as a para teacher till his joining in the School as a para teacher, as per the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner did not worked nor he withdrew any honorarium/salary. The State respondent submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had taken his salary or not for the aforesaid period. 4. Now the intervener claims that he will be prejudiced if the petitioner is appointed. How the intervener will be prejudiced, has not been mentioned. It has also not been mentioned whether the intervener has been appointed or not and if so whether appointment of the petitioner will amount to removal of this intervener. The State and the petitioner submits that the intervener has not yet been appointed. The reasons of intervention is vague. Simple one line has been mentioned that the intervener will be prejudiced. The State and the petitioner submits that the intervener has not yet been appointed. The reasons of intervention is vague. Simple one line has been mentioned that the intervener will be prejudiced. What prejudice will be caused to him has also not been mentioned. 5. Thus, the intervention application is bereft of any merit. Accordingly, I.A. No. 10559 of 2022 is dismissed.” 3. The appellant is also aggrieved by the writ Court’s direction to the respondents to issue an appointment letter in favor of the respondent no. 5; who is the writ petitioner. 4. By an order dated 29th November 2022, WP(S) No. 1207 of 2022 has been allowed holding as under: “5. From the facts and argument of the parties, it is clear and undisputed that the petitioner was appointed as para teacher in the year 2006. He enhanced his educational qualification in the year 2007-08. The petitioner was selected to be appointed as Graduate Trained Teacher in the district of Koderma under the reserved category of “existing para teacher”. It is the pleadings of the petitioner that the petitioner has not taken any remuneration/honorarium for the period 27.2.2006 till his joining i.e. on 3.9.2008 i.e. the period during which the petitioner was enhancing his educational qualification. The respondent has submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had drawn his salary for the aforesaid period. The petitioner had neither taught the students nor had drawn his salary during the aforesaid period. He only started drawing his salary once he joined the school as para teacher in the year 2009. The petitioner was actually working as para teacher till 2019 when he submitted his resignation pursuant to his selection as permanent Graduate Trained Teacher. Further it is an admitted fact that the appointment as para teacher of the petitioner was not cancelled at any point of time on the ground of enhancement of his educational qualification. 6. It is the case of the State that since the petitioner could not have enhanced his educational qualification while he was working as para teacher, his degree of graduation and B.Ed cannot be considered for appointment as Graduate Trained Teacher. 7. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that on the date when the petitioner applied for appointment as B.Ed. Trained teacher, he was a para teacher. 7. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that on the date when the petitioner applied for appointment as B.Ed. Trained teacher, he was a para teacher. His application was never challenged nor his status of para teacher was challenged by the State. The petitioner qualified in the said examination and even the District Education Establishment Committee recommended to appoint the petitioner. Now the respondents have taken a plea that the enhancement of his educational qualification will come in the way of the petitioner to be appointed and he cannot be treated as para teacher. 8. This argument of respondent cannot be accepted as at no point of time when the petitioner was serving as para teacher, he was served notice nor any action was taken against him nor his contract was terminated. Further, on the facts, it is admitted and undisputed that the petitioner did not work as para teacher during the period when he enhanced his educational qualification rather he joined as para teacher in the year 2009 though he was appointed in the year 2006. No disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner nor his appointment was terminated. Thus, now the respondent cannot take a plea that the petitioner had enhanced his educational qualification and thus he ceased to be a para teacher. There cannot be any automatic termination of para teacher, there has to be an order terminating the agreement, which admittedly is not there in this case. 9. In that view, I find no plausible reason to withhold the issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner by the State. I direct the respondents to issue the said appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.” 5. In the first place, the appellant has failed to establish that he was a necessary party or a proper party in the pending WP(S) No. 1207 of 2022. The writ Court rightly observed that except giving a vague reason for intervention, the appellant did not provide any plausible explanation how he would be prejudiced if he is not added as a party in the writ proceeding. The whole claim of the appellant is that his chances of appointment as Graduate Trained Teacher would be obliterated if the respondent no. 5 is appointed. The whole claim of the appellant is that his chances of appointment as Graduate Trained Teacher would be obliterated if the respondent no. 5 is appointed. But then, the fact remains that the intervener was never appointed on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher whereas pursuant to the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee the appellant’s name was proposed for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher under MBC (para teacher) category. It further appears that the District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 18th June 2019 took a decision to appoint appellant on his fulfilling certain conditions indicated therein. The appellant produced before the writ Court a copy of the decision dated 17th November 2020 of the District Superintendent of Education who passed an order for posting of the appellant at Middle School at Makatpur in the Jaynagar Block. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had participated in the recruitment exercise for appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2015-16. However, the appellant has failed to bring on record any material to justify his stand that he was just below the appellant in the merit list. 6. While so, we do not find any ground to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, LPA No.200 of 2023 is dismissed.