Judgment :- 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 11.6.2001 in O.P.No.15035/1996 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition. 2. The appellant applied for the post of Integrated Child Development Scheme (I.C.D.S.) Supervisor pursuant to a Notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The appellant’s application was rejected by the Public Service Commission on the ground that she did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the Notification. The communication dated 6.9.1996 rejecting the appellant’s application is Ext.P3. 3. As per the Notification issued by the Public Service Commission the qualifications prescribed for the posts of ICDS Supervisor are the following: “(1) A Degree in Sociology/Social Work/Home Science/Psychology. OR (2) a. A Degree in any other discipline from a recognised University; and b. Balasevika Training Certificate (one year course) issued by Indian/State Council of child Welfare or any other recognised institution; OR One-year experience as Supervisor, ICDS/Anganwadi Worker/Balasevika Care Mother/NurseryTeacher/Lady Village Extension Officer. OR (3) SSLC and 5 years experience as Anganwadi Worker under ICDS.” Admittedly the appellant did not possess the required qualifications. Even though the appellant had a Degree in Mathematics, she did not possess Balasevika Training Certificate or one-year experience as Supervisor, ICDS/Anganwadi Worker/Balasevika Care Mother/Nursery Teacher/Lady Village Extension Officer. Since the appellant did not possess the required qualifications under the Special Rules and under the Notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition holding that the rejection of the appellant’s application by the Kerala Public Service Commission was legal and valid. We do not find any illegality in the above view taken by the learned Single Judge. We agree with the learned Single Judge that a candidate who does not possess the qualifications prescribed under the Special Rules and stipulated in the Notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission is not eligible or entitled to apply for the post. 4. Mr.Sudhakara Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant’s argument that the qualification prescribed by the Special Rules is unreasonable, was not properly appreciated and considered by the learned Single Judge. According to the learned counsel, the appellant has passed the Pre-primary Teachers Training Certificate Examination held in 1993. 4. Mr.Sudhakara Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant’s argument that the qualification prescribed by the Special Rules is unreasonable, was not properly appreciated and considered by the learned Single Judge. According to the learned counsel, the appellant has passed the Pre-primary Teachers Training Certificate Examination held in 1993. According to him, the Pre-primary Teachers Training Course is a one year Nursery School Teachers Training course and it should be treated as equal to, if not better than, the Balasevika Training Certificate or one year experience as Supervisor, ICDS/Anganwadi Worker/Balasevika Care Mother/Nursery Teacher/Lady Village Extension Officer. This contention was noted by the learned Single Judge but the learned Single Judge found that there was no support for the above proposition. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has pointed out that if the appellant’s qualification is directed to be accepted as equivalent to Balasevika Training Certificate issued by the Indian/State Council of Child Welfare or any other recognised institution, it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as several persons with the said qualification would not have applied for the post since it is not a recognised qualification as per the Special Rules and the Notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. It is significant that the appellant did not challenge the Notification immediately after the issuance of the Notification. Knowing fully well that she is not qualified under the Special Rules and the Notification, she submitted her application, waited for the Public Service Commission to reject her application and then filed the Writ Petition challenging the rejection of the application and also the Special Rules. In our view, a candidate cannot be allowed to follow such a short-cut and steal a march over other persons who possess the same qualification but did not apply since the qualification is not sufficient as per the Special Rules and the Notification issued by the Public Service Commission. At the time of submitting the application and on the last date fixed for submitting application, the Special Rules provided for certain qualifications and they were stipulated as required qualifications in the Notification issued by the Public Service Commission. A person who does not possess the said qualifications is not eligible to apply for the post and the application submitted by the said person cannot be entertained only for the reason that he filed a Writ Petition challenging the Notification. A person who does not possess the said qualifications is not eligible to apply for the post and the application submitted by the said person cannot be entertained only for the reason that he filed a Writ Petition challenging the Notification. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for declaration that the Special Rules are unreasonable and that the appellant was qualified for the post. 5. Moreover, we are of the view that the qualification required for a particular post is essentially a matter which should be decided by the rule making authority. The court does not have the necessary expertise or experience to decide such matters. Therefore, as far as possible, this court will not interfere with the decision of the rule making authority regarding the qualifications required for a post. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, there are not sufficient materials before the court to consider and decide whether the qualification of Pre-primary Teachers Training Certificate is equivalent to or better than Balasevika Training Certificate or one year experience as Supervisor, ICDS/Anganwadi Worker/Balasevika Care Mother/Nursery Teacher/Lady Village Extension Officer. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the proposal for amending the Special Rules to include Pre-Primary Teachers Training Certificate as a qualification for the post of I.C.D.S. Supervisor is pending and that the draft rules have been prepared. Even that will not confer a right on the appellant to be treated as qualified for the post, for which applications were invited on the basis of the existing Special Rules. 6. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.