PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks the relief of quashing the impugned order Annx. 10 and directing respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Headmaster at Secondary School.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner has to his credit the qualifications of M. A. (Sociology) and B. Ed. He was appointed as Teacher Grade III vide order dated 14-11-1992. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 7-3-2002, petitioner applied for the post of Headmaster at Secondary School, appeared in the written examination and qualified the same. Vide order dated 6-11-2003 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission"), petitioner has been declared ineligible on account of not possessing requisite teaching experience and he is not being called for interview commencing from 17-11-2003 to 22-11- 2003. Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Petitioner is working on the post of Teacher Grade III. He also possesses the requisite academic qualification for appointment on the post of Headmaster at Secondary School laid down in the advertisement Annx. 6. However, he does not have the requisite teaching experience or other eligibility as laid down in the advertisement. As per the advertisement Annx. 6, for appointment on the post in question, apart from the academic qualification, a candidate should have the following experience:- " Five years' teaching experience in High School/junior Hr. Secondary/ Hr. Secondary classes or four years experience of administrative work in Middle School and three years teaching experience of High School/ Junior Higher Secondary/ Higher Secondary classes, or having experience of five years as a Senior Teacher or higher post as per the Sections C,d, E and F of Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. " The candidature of the petitioner for interview has been denied on the ground that he does not have five years teaching experience in Secondary or higher classes. It is not the case of the petitioner that he completes any of the conditions mentioned in the experience clause of the advertisement. In Harpal Kaur Chahal vs. Director, Punjab Instructions (1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:- " It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules. "
(3.) IN Utkal University etc. vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi & Ors. (2), and Gopal Krushna Rath vs. M. A. A. Baig (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated that the eligibility is to be assessed as per the Rules existing on the last date of submission of the application. In State of J & K vs. Shiv Ram Sharma & Ors. (4), the Apex Court considered the scope of amended Rules providing for promotion to the employees and observed that the law is well settled that it is permissible for the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion to different posts. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore vs. C. D. Govinda Rao & Anr. (5), has held that in academic matters, where the decision under challenge has been taken by the Committee of Expert, "normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts" unless there are allegations of malafide against any of the Members of the Expert Committee. The Court further observed as under:- ". . . . . . It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than Courts. . . . . . " ;