ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that these petitioners took Teachers Eligibility Test, 2012 (for short TET). When the result was declared, it was uploaded on the website of the Jharkhand Academic Council. Only then these petitioners could know that on account of non-compliance of Teachers Training Course, they have been declared unsuccessful. 3. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the candidates appearing in the Teachers Training Examination the conditions which had been laid down in the advertisement by the Jharkhand Academic Council (for short JAC) that the appearing candidates must have completed the course and appeared in the examination by 31.12.2012. Later on, it was notified by the JAC that the certificate or mark-sheet should have been submitted before the JAC by 13.5.2013 under Speed Post. These petitioners had completed the Teachers Training Course and had appeared in the examination before 31.12.2012. When the result, of the Teachers Training Examination was uploaded by Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak from where these petitioners had completed their course, it was downloaded and was sent to the JAC through Speed Post which was received much before 13.5.2013, still these petitioners were not declared successful. 4. In this regard, it was further submitted that the reason, which has been disclosed in the counter affidavit for declaring the petitioners unsuccessful, is that the mark-sheet, which has been downloaded by the petitioners and sent to the JAC, has never been treated to be the mark-sheet though the mark-sheet, submitted, after getting it downloaded, is the same as that of mark-sheet received in normal course show in the same marks in each and every subject and thereby the action of the respondents of not accepting the mark-sheet obtained in the Teachers Training Examination as valid, is quite arbitrary. 5. As against this, Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Academic Council, by referring to the statement made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the rejoinder to the affidavit filed on 28.3.2014, submits that a notification has been issued by the JAC on 27.4.2013 stipulating therein that the appearing candidates are to submit certificate/mark-sheet of the Teachers Training Examination by Speed Post to JAC latest by 13.5.2013 failing which their candidature shall stand rejected. 6. 6. In this regard, it was further submitted that these petitioners in response to the said notification had not submitted certificates relating to marks obtained in the B.Ed. examination which is evident from the copies of the mark-sheets submitted before the JAC and the copies of the mark-sheets obtained in regular manner which have been annexed as Annexure-l series. From perusal of the same, it would appear that the mark-sheets, which have been supplied to the petitioners in regular course, bear date as 2.5.2013 of passing the examination, whereas in those mark-sheets which have been submitted before the JAC, date of result has been shown as 6.5.2013 and under the circumstances, those mark-sheets, which were downloaded and were submitted before the JAC, were never treated to be the mark-sheets as contemplated under the advertisement dated 18.11.2012 and thereby no illegality has been committed by the authority in rejecting the candidature of these petitioners. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, there has been no dispute of the fact that the petitioners did not appear in the Teachers Training Examination or did not complete the course by 31.12.2012. The only reason, for which candidature of these petitioners has been rejected, is that the mark-sheets, which were allegedly downloaded by the petitioners and submitted before the JAC, were not taken to be the mark-sheets of the Teachers Training Examination. Nothing is there in the counter affidavit that it was not treated to be the mark-sheets for the reason that it did not bear signature of the Examination Comptroller or for any other reason except one reason which was disclosed before the Court that the mark-sheets, which were submitted by the petitioners, bear date of result as 6.5.2013, whereas Annexure-1 series, which are also the mark-sheets obtained by the petitioners in regular course, bears the date of passing the examination as 2.5.2013, but again this has never been the case of the JAC that those mark-sheets submitted were forged or it has never been uploaded by Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. There may be some discrepancy with respect to the date of declaration of the result but for that the petitioners cannot be held liable. There may be some discrepancy with respect to the date of declaration of the result but for that the petitioners cannot be held liable. If any doubt would have been there on the part of the authority over the genuinity of the mark-sheets, it could have been verified by the JAC from the institution itself to know about the genuinity of the mark-sheets. 8. Thus, I do find that in spite of all conditions being fulfilled by the petitioners, except petitioner no. 4 Jaykaran Mahto, who seems to have admitted that the mark-sheet has been received in the office on 15.5.2013, they have been declared unsuccessful which action appears to be quite arbitrary. 9. Under the circumstances, Jharkhand Academic Council is hereby directed to declare the result of the petitioners except petitioner no. 4 Jaykaran Mahto within a period of two weeks from today. 10. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.