ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two petitioners passed the recruitment test upto the interview for appointment of Primary Teachers under the respondent-DVC under the Advertisement at Annexure 1, which prescribes the following qualifications and experience:- Post Graduate Teacher 22nd class Master's degree of University with minimum of 45% marks in the respective subject with B.Ed. From NCTE approved institute in respective medium. Preference will be given to those having teaching experience of 2 years in Higher Secondary/College class in respective medium. Trained Graduate Teacher Graduate with B.Ed from NCTE approved Institute in respective medium and subject with minimum 2 years teaching experience. Physical Instructor Graduate with Bachelor degree of Physical Education (B.P. Ed) or its equivalent from recognized Institute or University. Primary Teacher 10+2 or Intermediate with Junior Basic Training/ B.El.Ed./B.Ed from recognized or NCTE approved Institute and having 3 years teaching experience in respective medium. 3. The petitioners have not been included in the panel of selected candidates thereafter, which is their grievance raised in the present writ petition. The evident reasons for holding the petitioners ineligible as stated in the counter affidavit of the respondent-Corporation is that both the petitioners have passed the Siksha Visharad examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad claiming to be equivalent to B.Ed. though they have not been able to show even at the time of interview any documents showing declaration of the equivalence of the said qualification to that of the required B.Ed. qualification prescribed under the advertisement. 4. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that Siksha Visharad qualification is not even recognized by the State of Jharkhand as has also been held by the learned Division Bench of this Court in a batch of cases being LPA No. 235 of 2004 (Dilip Kumar Gupta and Others vs. State of Jharkhand) along with analogous cases in the matter arising out of a similar recruitment test conducted by JPSE for appointment to the post of primary teachers. Paragraph 42 of the said judgment, which contains the discussion on the qualifications of Siksha Visharad obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is relied upon. It is also submitted that the employer has a right to make a choice and it is within the domain of the employer to declare equivalence of any qualification prescribed for such recruitment, such as B.Ed. in the instant case. It is also submitted that the employer has a right to make a choice and it is within the domain of the employer to declare equivalence of any qualification prescribed for such recruitment, such as B.Ed. in the instant case. Therefore, petitioners have though been called for interview but did not have a legal right to be included in the panel for such employment. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon enclosure, Annexure-6 to the rejoinder, which appears to be some document with the head note Academic Mobility in HE in India under University Grants Commission. The nomenclature of different qualifications prescribed there under such as B.Ed., M.Ed., M.Phil and Ph.D. for different levels of educations and there duration are indicated therein. Nomenclatures of other qualifications including Siksha Visharad has also been given in the foot note. Petitioners have also enclosed an extract of Hand Book For Personnel Officers of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of India where there is a reference of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad as a deemed University under Section 3 of UGC Act. 6. These documents, however, do not establish the claim of the petitioners that qualification of Siksha Visharad is declared equivalent to B.Ed. qualification prescribed under the advertisement in question, for the purposes of recruitment to the post of primary teachers under the respondent-Corporation. The declaration of deemed University by the UGC is a different matter. Qualification of designated courses such as Shiksha Visharad of such University have not been conferred equivalence, such as in the case of Dilip Kumar Gupta (supra) for the purposes of recruitment by the employer i.e. DVC in the present case. 7. In view of the discussions and the reasons recorded hereinabove, petitioners have failed to show that their qualification of Siksha Visharad is Equivalent to B.Ed. qualification as prescribed under the advertisement for the purposes of their appointment. Mere participation in the interview does not confer a right for appointment unless the candidate fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed under the advertisement in question. 8. Therefore the writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.