JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 300 dated 07.03.2017 and also the order contained in Memo No. 312 dated 09.03.2017 passed by the 3 rd Respondent; whereby the petitioner working as Science Teacher, Kasturaba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Boarijor, district Godda has been terminated from service in the light of the order of the respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Godda. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the advertisement, the minimum criteria for appointment as Science Teacher was B.A and the upper degree i.e. B.Ed. degree etc. was not mentioned in the advertisement as minimum qualification and therefore on the ground of not having minimum qualification of B.Ed. degree, the termination order is bad in law and it is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further refers to the order passed by this Court on 14.09.2023; whereby the JEPC was directed to file specific affidavit bringing on record the relevant document and paper cutting of the newspaper. 4. For brevity, order dated 14.09.2023 passed in the instant case is extracted hereinbelow: “It is specific case of the petitioner as argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner possesses the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement. In the advertisement, the degree of B.Ed was not the requirement. Learned senior counsel further argues that it transpires from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that by way of corrigendum, the additional qualification of B.Ed was introduced. In the affidavit, though corrigendum has been attached whereby fresh advertisement was floated and additional qualification of B.Ed was introduced but nowhere it has been whispered as to when the said advertisement was floated and in which newspaper the same was advertised. Let JEPC as well as State file a specific affidavit that bringing on record the relevant document and paper cutting of the newspaper where the advertisement regarding the said corrigendum was ever published. As prayed for, put up this case on 12.10.2023.” 5. Pursuant thereto; a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 21.12.2023, wherein at paragraph no. Let JEPC as well as State file a specific affidavit that bringing on record the relevant document and paper cutting of the newspaper where the advertisement regarding the said corrigendum was ever published. As prayed for, put up this case on 12.10.2023.” 5. Pursuant thereto; a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 21.12.2023, wherein at paragraph no. 7 it has been stated that advertisement paper cutting dated 30.05.2010 is not available in the office due to lapse of almost 13 years and due to which there is difficulty in providing its photo copy. 6. It has also been stated in the said supplementary counter affidavit that since there was an error regarding minimum qualification of full-time teacher; therefore, a letter was written by the 3 rd Respondent to the Press instructing them to publish the corrigendum so that the candidate should not be harassed. A covering letter dated 30.05.2010 addressed to different newspaper is annexed (refer, page 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 21.12.2023). From bare perusal of the letter dated 30.05.2010 coupled with the statement made in paragraph no. 7 that paper cutting is not available appears to be genuine in view of the fact that the letter written to the editors of different newspapers as indicated hereinabove cannot be doubted. Moreover, the said letter dated 30.05.2010 bears the proper letter number and signature of the concerned officer. 7. The stand of the petitioner is that nobody can go beyond the advertisement unless the selection process is over. There is no disagreement with this proposition but the fact remains that if at all the authority finds any discrepancy; they can issue a corrigendum. Merely paper cutting is not available with them will not indicate that the respondents are making any false statement before this Court. 8. Furthermore, if at all the petitioner is doubting this letter which has been filed pursuant to the order passed by this Court, he should have filed a rejoinder to that effect; however, even after a lapse of almost a year, no rejoinder has been filed doubting the said document. As stated hereinabove this Court does not doubt the said document and admittedly the authorities are entitled to issue corrigendum if at all there is any discrepancy in the advertisement. 9. As stated hereinabove this Court does not doubt the said document and admittedly the authorities are entitled to issue corrigendum if at all there is any discrepancy in the advertisement. 9. So far as the impugned order is concerned and also the contention of the learned senior counsel that natural justice has not been followed, the same is not acceptable to this Court as it was a contractual employment and when it was found by the respondents that the basic eligibility of the petitioner is doubtful, I do not think any reason to remit the case to the concerned respondent only for the reason of giving show-cause notice. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. 11. Pending I. As, if any, also stand disposed of.