Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The name of present petitioner was not included in the result dated 18th March, 2015 published by Respondent-J.A.C under Adv. no. 93/2011, though he claims to have secured 213 marks in General Category and his name was appearing in the result dated 24th October, 2014. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that Respondent-J.A.C should declare his result and the Respondent-State should offer him appointment on the said post. 3. The material facts which are required to be noticed for coming at adjudication of the present dispute is being noticed hereunder. The petitioner participated in the recruitment exercise for appointment in the subject of Sanskrit on the basis of his qualification Shastri obtained from Maharshi Dayanand University in the year 2002. Petitioner in his application form did not mention that he had obtained qualification of Acharya from the same University in 2004. The application of the petitioner is at Annexure-A. Petitioner however was shown in the result published on 24th October, 2014 by respondent-J.A.C which complete list was withdrawn for revision of the results on account of certain lacuna pointed out by the Department of Human Resources Development. Petitioner claims that Shastri under which he applied is equivalent to graduation and therefore petitioner's candidature should have been considered by Respondent-JAC in terms of conditions of advertisement. 4. Learned senior counsel for respondent-J.A.C submits that the terms of advertisement specifically Clause Ga(i), Annexure-2 are very clear on that. It is stated that the applicant for being eligible for selection and recommendation was required to have obtained the qualification of Acharya (Sahitya and Vayakaran) from University or Board established by the State Government or the Central Government or should have obtained qualification of graduation in Arts with 2nd Division with Sanskrit as one of the subjects and 45% marks. Petitioner did not ever stake his claim on the basis of his qualification of Acharya before Respondent-J.A.C and therefore could not be allowed to make a claim for recommending his case on the ground that he also possesses qualification of Achraya. It is submitted that the very issue in relation to the same subject of Sanskrit and the qualification of Shastri upon which a similarly placed candidate sought declaration of his result under the same Adv. no. It is submitted that the very issue in relation to the same subject of Sanskrit and the qualification of Shastri upon which a similarly placed candidate sought declaration of his result under the same Adv. no. 93/2011 was considered by this Court in the case of Raghawendra Mishra vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors vide judgment dated 22nd July, 2015 in W.P.(S) no. 1843 of 2015. Relying upon the said judgment, it is submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra as has been well considered by this Court whereunder any inference in such matter has been refused on the ground that the qualification of Shastri is not a minimum educational criteria required for being selected under the said advertisement for the post of Sanskrit Teacher in Upgraded High School. 5. Having considered the relevant material facts and the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Manudeo Arya and Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. dated 15th July, 2015 in W.P.(S) no. 1500 of 2015, where the provisions of same condition Ga(i) and Rule 4(3)(ka) of the Jharkhand Nationalized Secondary School (Service Conditions), Rule, 2004 “as amended“ has been considered. The said judgment has also been relied upon in the case of Raghawendra Mishra (Supra). For better appreciation, the operative portion of the judgment in the case Manudeo Arya is quoted hereunder: “Provisions laying down the eligibility criteria Ga (i) of the advertisement is quoted hereunder:- ¼x½ mi;qZDr dzekad 3 ¼laLÑr½] 4 ¼mnwZ½] 11 ¼Qkjlh½ ,oa 12 ¼vjch½ fo"k; dh fjfDr;ksa ds fy;s fu/Zkkfjr ;ksX;rk ,oa vgZrk %& ¼i½ jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUnz ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fo'ofo|ky; vFkok cksMZ }kjk iznŸk vkpk;Z ¼lkfgR; vFkok O;kdj.k½ vFkok Qkfty ¼vjch ;k mnwZ vFkok Qkjlh½ dh fMxzh vFkok jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUnz ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls dyk esa f}rh; Js.kh esa laLÑr ;k vjch ;k mnwZ vFkok Qkjlh ds lkFk U;wure 45 izfr'kr vadks ls Lukrd fMxzh/kkjh gks] fdUrq vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr mEehnokjksa ds ekeys esa U;wure izkIrkad 40 izfr'kr ykxw gksxkA They are in conformity with the Rule 4(3)(Ka) of the Jharkhand Nationalization Secondary School(service conditions) Rule 2004 “as amended”. The amended Rule is also quoted hereinunder:- 5 >kj[k.M jktdh;Ñe ek/;fed fo|ky; ¼lsok 'kŸk½Z fu;ekoyh] 2004 ds fu;e 4 ¼3½¼d½ esa fuEuor la'kks/ku & mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 4 ¼3½¼d½ dks foyksfir djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr izfrzLFkkfir fd;k tk;sxk] ;Fkk & 4 ¼3½¼d½ jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUnz ljdkj }kjk iznŸk vkpk;Z ¼lkfgR; vFkok O;kdj.k½ vFkok Qkfty ¼vjch ;k mnwZ vFkok Qkjlh½ dh fMxzh jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUnz ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fdlkh fo'ofo|ky; ls dyk esa f}rh; Js.kh esa laLÑr ;k vjch ;k mnwZ vFkok Qkjlh ds lkFk U;wure 45 izfr'kr vadks ls Lukrd fMxzh vfuok;Z vgZrk gksxhA fdUrq vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds ekeys esa mDr U;wure izkIrkad 40 izfr'kr ykxw jgsxkA As per the aforesaid eligibility criteria, a candidate seeking appointment on the post of Sanskrit Teacher ought to have either obtained qualification of Acharya (Sahitya and Vayakaran) or should have passed graduation in Arts exam in 2nd Division with Sanskrit Subject having 45% marks; in case of SC and ST minimum 40% marks were required. The petitioners are general category candidates. From perusal of educational certificate relevant to which are from page 37 to 45, in respect of the petitioner no. 1, it is apparent that his Shastri Gurukul Scheme Para-3 result containing the detail marks card were published on 30.06.2012 from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak though exams are shown to be held in April, 2005. This result of part-3 exams is, therefore, also after cut off date for making application i.e. on 25.11.2011. The result of Acharya which is also annexed thereafter shows that he obtained the said qualification only on 27.11.2012 from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi i.e. after the cut off date. The educational certificates of the petitioner no. 2 are enclosed as Anneuxre-5 series and in his case also, it is apparent that he obtained the qualification of Acharya on 30.06.2013 from Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Darbhanga and before that he had qualification of Shastri. Shastri qualification is not the minimum qualification required as per the terms of advertisement and Rules. Therefore, both the petitioners did not have the minimum educational qualification by the cut off date i.e. 25.11.2011. On verification of their educational certificates, therefore, their names were not shown in the result published on 18.03.2015.” 6. Shastri qualification is not the minimum qualification required as per the terms of advertisement and Rules. Therefore, both the petitioners did not have the minimum educational qualification by the cut off date i.e. 25.11.2011. On verification of their educational certificates, therefore, their names were not shown in the result published on 18.03.2015.” 6. In the present case as has been noticed hereinabove, the petitioner applied as a candidate having qualification of Shastri which admittedly was not the minimum eligibility criteria required under the said advertisement and the Rules. The fact that the petitioner did have higher qualification would not improve his case now as that would amount to giving unfair advantage to the petitioner vis-a-vis all other such eligible persons. Any such candidate was required to disclose his qualification in the application form to be submitted by cut off date i.e. 25th November, 2011 for being considered for such selection. The Respondent-J.A.C in their counter affidavit have also stated that the petitioner sent his representation on 20.6.2015 through speed post after publication of the revised result, showing his qualification of Acharya. The revised results were published on 30th May, 2015 pursuant to the directions of this Court in the case of Santosh -Kumar Tiwari (Supra). 7. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid discussions made and the reasons recorded, petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the matter, which is accordingly, dismissed.