ORDER Mishra, J:- 1. Assailing the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.5771 of 2023, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that Joint Recruitment Examination was advertised by the Professional Examination Board in the year 2018. She participated in the said examination under the Scheduled Tribe category. She obtained first position in the merit list. She opted for employment in the Lokayukt Department and accordingly vide order dated 17.1.2019, she was directed to appear in the Lokayukt office Bhopal for verification of the documents. However, she was not allowed to join. No information was given to her regarding the authorities not permitting her to join. She contacted the Secretary of the Department and came to know that only one post of Hindi Stenographer was lying vacant. Whereas, the petitioner was an English Stenographer. She requested the Secretary that she may be permitted to join on the post and she would submit the Hindi Stenography Certificate within a short time. She was not allowed to join and appointment of the petitioner was rejected thereafter. Being aggrieved by the same, a Writ Petition being W.P. No.16511 of 2019 was filed which was allowed vide order dated 13.5.2022 and the respondents were directed to call for a requisition from the Professional Examination Board who, in turn, will examine that if there is no other candidate more meritorious than the petitioner in that category for the post of English Stenographer then shall send a requisition to the State Government on which the Government will act in accordance with rules and regulations. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as English Stenographer on 30.12.2022 on probation for a period of three years and she would be entitled for 70% of pay during her first year, 80% of pay during her second year and 90% of pay during her third year of probation. It is her case that since she is appointed in pursuance to the recruitment process of 2018 and the appointment was given in January 2019, therefore, she should be given seniority from the said date and probation period should be reduced to two years and she should be given regular pay scale. Hence, she preferred another petition being WP No.5771 of 2023 which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.10.2023. 4. Hence, she preferred another petition being WP No.5771 of 2023 which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.10.2023. 4. Challenge to the impugned order is made on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the petitioner was meritorious in her category. The counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the submissions as were made before the learned writ Court. 5. Per contra, State counsel has supported the impugned order contending that the learned writ court has considered all the aspects of the matter and has dismissed the writ petition observing that the writ court in the earlier round of litigation has taken a lenient view and has passed the order only on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner was not having a certificate of Hindi stenography. It is only with the humanitarian consideration being made by the authorities in view of the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation that she was granted appointment vide order dated 30.11.2022 in the office of Additional Advocate General, Gwalior. Therefore, she was not entitled for seniority from 7.1.2019 by which she was called for verification of her documents. The learned writ court has considered all these aspects of the matter. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not having the requisite certificate for the post on which she has been granted appointment on the relevant date. In the earlier round of litigation i.e. in WP No.16511 of 2019, it was observed that the petitioner has submitted her candidature in July 2018 and the last date for submission of the documents was 6.7.2018. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess qualification of Hindi stenography on the date of filling up the form. She obtained the certificate of Hindi stenography from an Institute which was issued to her on 31.7.2019 i.e. much after the cut-off date. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess qualification of Hindi stenography on the date of filling up the form. She obtained the certificate of Hindi stenography from an Institute which was issued to her on 31.7.2019 i.e. much after the cut-off date. Vide impugned order, the learned writ Court has taken note of the aforesaid aspects of the matter and has observed that just because an order was passed by the writ Court in the earlier round of litigation taking a lenient view in the matter and directed the authorities to search for a vacancy in any department in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner was accommodated in the office of Additional Advocate General, Gwalior on the post of English Stenographer but the fact remains that when she was asked to exercise her option, she has opted for Lokayukta Department. 8. Admittedly, there was only one post of Hindi Stenographer lying vacant in the Lokayukta Department for which the petitioner was not fulfilling the required qualification. Thus, once the option which has been exercised by the petitioner could not be granted to her in view of lack of qualification, merely considering her for grant of appointment on humanitarian grounds to the post of English Stenographer in the office of Additional Advocate General in Gwalior will be of no help to the petitioner to claim seniority from 7.1.2019 as no right accrued to her. She was not having required qualification to the option exercised by her. The seniority of the petitioner will be counted from the date on which she has been granted appointment and the date of her joining to the aforesaid post in the office of Additional Advocate General, Gwalior. 9. The learned writ Court has rightly assessed all the aspects of the matter and the same could not be countered by the appellant either in the writ petition or in this appeal. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in an intra-Court appeal is limited unless the findings of the learned Single Judge are perverse. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the learned writ court upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by the counsels for the parties has dismissed the petition. Hence, no relief can be extended to the appellant. 10. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.