ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2-Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) to recommend the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in subject- “English” pursuant to Advertisement No. 05 of 2018 issued for filling-up backlog vacancies of the said post through reserved category candidates in different Universities of the State of Jharkhand. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a Scheduled Tribe candidate, having possessed minimum qualification of Master’s Degree being Master in Arts in the subject-“Linguistics” with more than 55% and also having passed the National Eligibility Test (NET) in the said subject, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject - “English.” 3. It is further contended that the documents submitted by the petitioner with respect to possessing minimum qualification were verified by the respondent-JPSC and thereafter she was called for interview. Accordingly, she appeared in the interview held on 17.02.2020. She secured 57.15 marks out of total 85 marks allotted for educational qualifications, Post Ph.D. Research/Teaching Experience and Publications. However, she could not know about the marks obtained in interview as the same was not disclosed by the respondent- JPSC. Moreover, her name did not find place in the list of candidates recommended for appointment on the said post by the JPSC whereas a candidate namely Alisha Vandana Lakra who secured 50 marks on the basis of academic qualifications, was recommended to be appointed as Assistant Professor in the subject- “English”. Being aggrieved with the said action of the respondent-JPSC, the petitioner raised her grievance through representations, however the same remained unresponded which compelled her to prefer the present writ petition. 4. Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- JPSC, submits that though the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in subject- “English” however she did not have the Master’s Degree in the said subject, rather she submitted the certificate of Master’s Degree in the subject- “Linguistics” which is different from the subject - “English.” 5. It is further submitted that merely because the petitioner was called for interview, she did not have vested right to be appointed on the said post as she did not fulfil the minimum qualification as per Clause- 5 of Advertisement No. 05 of 2018. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is further submitted that merely because the petitioner was called for interview, she did not have vested right to be appointed on the said post as she did not fulfil the minimum qualification as per Clause- 5 of Advertisement No. 05 of 2018. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner despite fulfilling the minimum qualification to be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in subject- “English” and also having secured 57.15 marks on the basis of academic qualifications, was not finally recommended for appointment by the respondent-JPSC. 8. To appreciate the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to go through Clause-5 of the said advertisement. 9. As per Clause 5(i) of the said advertisement, a candidate was required to have good academic record with minimum 55% marks at the Master’s Degree or equivalent (or equivalent grade) in the relevant subject. 10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner possessed Master’s Degree in the subject- “Linguistics” which is equivalent to the subject- “English”, she had the qualification to be appointed as Assistant Professor in subject- “English”. 11. This Court is of the view that learned counsel for the petitioner has not properly understood the language used in Clause 5(i) of the said advertisement. The said clause in fact mandated that a candidate should have minimum 55% marks at Master’s Degree or equivalent degree (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) in the relevant subject. The said condition however did not mean that a candidate should have possessed Master’s Degree in any equivalent subject for which he/she applied. Otherwise also, the terms and conditions of the said advertisement did not make the subject-“Linguistics” equivalent to subject- “English”. Thus, the interpretation of Clause 5(i) of the said advertisement made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be misconceived. 12. Since the petitioner did not have the Master’s Degree in the subject she applied i.e., “English”, rather she possessed the Master’s Degree in other subject i.e., “Linguistics” this Court is of the view that the petitioner did not have the minimum qualification to be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the subject- “English” as per the said advertisement. 13. 13. Under the said circumstance, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that a candidate namely Alisha Vandana Lakra was recommended for appointment having secured 50 marks on the basis of academic qualifications which is lesser than the petitioner, has also no leg to stand. 14. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.