Honble GUPTA, J.—The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, issued a notification Anx. 3 inviting applications for some posts of Jr. Lecturers/Ist Grade Teachers. The qualification required for the candidates to apply for the post was post graduate in respective subject and B.Ed. with five years teaching experience in the Sr. Higher Secondary School. In pursuance of this advertisement the petitio- ner who is M.A. in Political Science with B.Ed. degree and had 5 years teaching experience, applied for the post. His application was entertained and he qualified the written examination held on 10.4.94. However, his candidature was cancelled by respondents no. 2 & 3 on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification of teaching experience after passing B.Ed. examination. (2). The petitioners case is that he had the experience of teaching and he had enclosed the certificate Anx. 6 regarding his teaching experience but the respondents are denying the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that his five years teaching experience was not posterior to the B.Ed. degree. It has been averred that the cancellation of the candidature by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. It was prayed that the petitioner be declared entitled to appear for the interview held on 28.4.94 and he may be appointed on the post of Jr. Lecturer in the respondent department. (3). In the reply filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 it has been averred that the petitioner did not have the experience of teaching after passing the B.Ed. examina- tion and therefore he was not eligible to be appointed on the post of Jr. Lecturer as per the Rules. (4). No written reply has been filed by respondent no. 1. (5). Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Rules no where provide that the experience of teaching should be posterior to the passing of B.Ed. examination and therefore the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as Jr. Lecturer on the basis of the certificate Anx. 6 which was of 6 years 2 months & 10 days duration. He took me through the Rules and the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 to emphasize that it is not necessary that 5 years teaching experience should be posterior to the passing of B.Ed. examination. Lecturer on the basis of the certificate Anx. 6 which was of 6 years 2 months & 10 days duration. He took me through the Rules and the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 to emphasize that it is not necessary that 5 years teaching experience should be posterior to the passing of B.Ed. examination. He further contended that the court must proceed with the assumption that the legislature did not make mistake and the court cannot be justified to add words to state or read words into it which are not there. In support of his contentions he cited the cases of Dr. Asim Kumar Bose vs. Union of India (1), Dharam Vir vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2) and P.K. Unni vs. Nirmala Industries & Ors. (3). (6). Mr. Joshi, learned Sr. Advocate on the other hand contended that when there is a provision in the Rules of experience normally it should be interpreted to be taken as experience after acquiring the minimum qualification required and as the minimum qualification for becoming eligible for the post of Jr. Lecturer is B.Ed., the teaching experience of prior period should not be held to be fulfilment of the eligibility criteria. (7). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above contentions. (8). In the notification Anx. 3 at Item No. 7 the educational qualification needed for the post has been recorded which is to the following effect :- ^^¼v½ ljdkj }kkjk ekU; fk{kk esa fMxzh ;k fMIyksek rFkk lqlaxr fo"k; esa LukRrdksRrj ,oa lSd.Mjh fo|ky;ksa ds Lrj ds rFkk blls Åij ds Lrj ds fdlh ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku esa v/;kiu dk 5 o"kZ dk vuqHkoA** (9). It is obvious that in the notification it was not stated that the experience of teaching should be posterior to the acquiring of the minimum qualification of B.Ed. (10). The appointments to the post of Jr. Lecturer (Sr. Teacher) is to be made as per the provisions of Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. Rule 11 provides for the qualification and experience for a candidate for direct recruitment to the post as enumerated in the schedule. It was admitted by both the learned counsel during arguments that Schedule-F is relevant to decide the controversy. It has been provided in Column no. Rule 11 provides for the qualification and experience for a candidate for direct recruitment to the post as enumerated in the schedule. It was admitted by both the learned counsel during arguments that Schedule-F is relevant to decide the controversy. It has been provided in Column no. 4 that the candidate having post graduate degree in the relevant subject with degree or diploma in education, recog- nised by Govt. of Rajasthan, with five years experience of teaching in recognised institution above the standard of Secondary School shall be eligible for direct recruitment. It is nowhere stated in column no. 4 that the five years teaching experience should be after passing the B.Ed. examination. It is the fundamental principle of rule of interpretation that the court must proceed with assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and it intended to say what it stated. When in the provisions it has not been stated that experience should be posterior to the degree of B.Ed., it cannot be accepted that the teaching experience prior to the acquiring of B.Ed. degree does not make a candidate eligible for the post. (11). In the case of Dharam Vir vs. State of Raj. (supra) the question before this Court was whether the experience gained by the Engineering personnel before acquiring qualification of degree or equivalent qualification is countable for the purpose of promotion to the next of higher post. This Court answered the question in affirmative. It was held that if there is no difference in the quality and nature of experience before the degree or after the degree it cannot be interpreted that the three years experience as Jr. Engineer should mean three years experience after degree. In the instant case also, the respondents have not been able to make out a case that there would be difference in the quality and nature of teaching experience gained before the B.Ed. and after the degree of education. (12). In the case of Dr. Asim Kumar Bose vs. Union of India (supra) the ques- tion before their lordships was whether the teaching experience gained by a specialist in a teaching hospital in the capacity of Associate Professor (Ex-officio) was countable towards the requisite teaching experience. and after the degree of education. (12). In the case of Dr. Asim Kumar Bose vs. Union of India (supra) the ques- tion before their lordships was whether the teaching experience gained by a specialist in a teaching hospital in the capacity of Associate Professor (Ex-officio) was countable towards the requisite teaching experience. The Apex Court held that such experience was countable because there is hardly any difference so far as teaching experience is concerned whether it is acquired on regular appointment or as Specialist in the teaching hospital with the ex-officio designation. It was further observed that when the statutory rules do not provide that the teaching experience gained in an ex-officio capacity shall not count towards the requisite teaching experience, the teaching experience gained by the appellant while holding the post of Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex- officio) in the Irwin Hospital cannot be ignored in determining his eligibility for appointment as Professor of Radiology. (13). In the instant case, as already observed, it has not been provided in the Rules that the teaching experience must be after obtaining the degree of education. As there is hardly any difference in so ar as the teaching experience before the pass- ing of the degree of education or afterwards the petitioner could not be deprived of consideration of his candidature on the ground that he had not gained experience of teaching after obtaining the degree of B.Ed. (14). Coming to the ruling relied on by Mr. Joshi, it may be stated that in that case it was specifically provided in the advertisement that the experience acquired after obtaining the minimum qualification will be taken into account. The question before their lordships was whether such condition could not be imposed. During the pendency of the matter before the Apex Court, an amendment was made in the Rules and, therefore, the matter was disposed of in the light of the amendment. Of course, it has been observed by their lordships that unless the context otherwise demands, It should be taken as experience after acquiring the minimum qualifications required and, therefore, necessarily will have to be posterior to the acquisition of the qualification. In the instant case, the provision is silent with regard to experience before or after acquiring of B.Ed. Of course, it has been observed by their lordships that unless the context otherwise demands, It should be taken as experience after acquiring the minimum qualifications required and, therefore, necessarily will have to be posterior to the acquisition of the qualification. In the instant case, the provision is silent with regard to experience before or after acquiring of B.Ed. degree and it has not been pointed out as to what difference will it make if the teaching experience was prior to the passing of the B.Ed. examination or after passing of the said examination. As such it cannot be interpreted that the rule making authority had intended that the experience of teaching should be posterior to the acquiring of the B.Ed. qualification. In my considered opinion, the respondents have committed error in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of the contention raised in the reply. (15). By the order of this Court dt. 25.7.94, the respondents were directed to interview the petitioner for the post and his result of selection was to be kept in a sealed cover. On 6.3.98 the Rajasthan Public Service Commission produced the result of the petitioner. It was frankly conceded that the persons who had obtained less marks than the petitioner have been selected. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be considered for the appointment. (16). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Jr. Lecturer. If he is found suitable he may be given appointment from the date persons lower in merit were given appointment. However, the petitioner shall get emoluments from the date he joins the post.