JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Being aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4935 of 2014 dismissing the writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as “petitioner”) has preferred the instant appeal which is at admission stage but, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, we have taken it on board for its final consideration. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by preparation of panel for appointment to the post of Inter Trained Teacher under the provisions of Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rule, 2012. The case setup by the petitioner before the Writ Court is that in his marksheet of Intermediate, the aggregate marks indicated is 440 whereas, only 393 marks obtained by him in compulsory and optional subjects i.e., RBH, English, Physics, Chemistry and Math were taken into account ignoring 82 marks obtained by him in Vocational subject, which plea was not accepted by the learned Writ Court on the ground that the marks obtained in the Vocational subject, in fact, was an additional subject and therefore, only 393 marks was obtained by the petitioner which were considered in terms of Rule 21 of 2012 Rules. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has once again reiterated the same plea before this Court. However, we are not in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. We have gone through Rule 21(Ka) of Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rule, 2012 and the Intermediate marksheet of the petitioner. For the Vocational subject, he has obtained 82 marks out of which 35 marks have been deducted as pass marks and remaining 47 marks have been added to 393 marks making it 440 in total. The petitioner, in any case, was not aggrieved of the Intermediate marksheet prepared in this regard by deducting 35 marks out of 82 marks for his Vocational subject (ST). What appears to us is that the marks obtained by the petitioner above 35 were added for the purposes of grading whereas, only compulsory subject marks were to be counted for the purposes of appointment in terms of Rule, 2012. What appears to us is that the marks obtained by the petitioner above 35 were added for the purposes of grading whereas, only compulsory subject marks were to be counted for the purposes of appointment in terms of Rule, 2012. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never filled up in his Admit Card any additional subject and that the Vocational subject should also be considered as compulsory subject is not acceptable to the Court. Vocational subject was to be taken by each candidate “compulsorily”, which does not mean that such subject is a compulsory subject for the purposes of counting its marks with other subjects. Being that the position in the case on hand, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Writ Court calling for our indulgence. 5. The appeal on hand thus, merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly.