Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner completed his B.Ed. Examination in 1992 and passed M.A. Final Examination in 1994. He was working as Teacher in various Government Secondary Schools since 29.12.87. When he filed the petition in 1995 in all he had experience of 8 years in teaching. Respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer issued an advertisement dated 12.5.94 for the post of Lecturer (School Education) (Annex.4). Pursuance to that advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post. However, by letter dated 10th May, 1985 (Annex. 5), the respondent informed the petitioner that his application was rejected on the ground that he was not having requisite teaching experience of 5 years after passing B.Ed. Examination. The same is challenged by the petitioner in this petition. Short controversy involved in this petition is that the total period of experience in service should be counted or the experience after obtaining Post Graduate Degree is to be counted. It is true that the petitioner in all had 8 years experience when he applied pursuance to the advertisement. But he passed B.Ed. in 1992 and had passed graduation degree only in 1994. Under the provisions of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 for direct recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Science (School Education) minimum requirement is Post Graduation in the relevant subject with five years experience of teaching in a recognised institution of or above the standard of Secondary School. Learned counsel Shri Choudhary for the petitioner relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in case of Bhagwant Prasad & Ors. vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1), submitted that the respondent had committed an error in not taking into consideration his total experience of 8 years in teaching in various Government Secondary School. He has placed reliance upon the following observations made by the Apex Court in Bhag- wati Prasads case (supra) : ``In our view, three years experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation, if there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re- appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three years period. (2). I am afraid this submission made by learned counsel Shri Choudhary cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in Bhagwati Prasads case, the question was regarding confirmation to the post. (2). I am afraid this submission made by learned counsel Shri Choudhary cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in Bhagwati Prasads case, the question was regarding confirmation to the post. The person was given artificial break in service for short period, therefore, under the circumstances, the Apex Court held that the artificial break in service has to be ignored for counting three years period. It may be stated that there were no such clear rules regarding confirmation. The interpretation was regarding completion of three years period for confirmation was made by the Apex Court in light of the facts before it in that case. However, as stated earlier, the Rules in the present case clearly provides that one should have not only a post graduation degree but also five years experience with it. The intention of the legislation is very clear when they used word ``with. This goes with the post graduation degree. Any experience prior to obtaining post graduation degree would not be of any value. Learned counsel Shri Joshi for the respondent has rightly placed reliance upon the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Sheshrao Jangluji Bade vs. Bhaiyya (2) and submitted that this Court should consider experience only after acquiring the minimum qualification required posterior to the acquisition of the qualification i.e. Post Graduation degree. In Sheshraos case (supra) the Apex Court has clearly observed that : ``Normally when we talk of an experience, 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. However, in the case of a promotion the same interpretation may not be just or warranted. It would depend on the relevant provisions as also the particular type of experience which is required. (3). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.