Honble PANWAR, J.–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. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. (4). 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. (5). 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. (6). (5). 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. (6). In Harpal Kaur Chahal vs. Director, Punjab Instructions (1), the Honble 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. (7). In Utkal University etc. vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi & Ors. (2), and Gopal Krushna Rath vs. M.A.A. Baig (3), the Honble 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. (8). 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. (9). 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. . . . . . (10). In Dr. Uma Kant vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & Ors. 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. . . . . . (10). In Dr. Uma Kant vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & Ors. (6), the Honble Supreme Court held as under:- ``It is well settled that in matters relating to educational institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the Court would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made by such educational authorities. (11). In the Chancellor & Anr. vs. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Ors. (7), the Honble Supreme Court held as under:- ``This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not, is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the concerned selection committees which invariability consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection. (12). Thus, it is settled law that when a decision is taken by the Committee of Expert having high academic qualifications and long experience in the specialised field, the Courts should not normally probe the matters unless there are compelling circumstances for doing so, i.e. allegations of malafide against the members of the Expert Committee, rejection of candidature on extraneous consideration etc. (13). In the instant case, the petitioner does not have to his credit the requisite experience as per the advertisement. Merely because petitioner possesses the requisite academic qualifications for appointment on the post of Headmaster, will not make him eligible for the post if he does not have the requisite teaching experience required as per the advertisement. Since the date of his initial appointment, the petitioner remained posted as Teacher Grade III in Upper Primary Schools and he never worked in a Secondary/ Upper Secondary or Senior Secondary school. While applying for the post of Headmaster, the petitioner must have gone through the ``eligibility criteria shown in the advertisement to ascertain his eligibility for the post in question. Had he gone through the eligibility criteria, he would not have applied for the post. While applying for the post of Headmaster, the petitioner must have gone through the ``eligibility criteria shown in the advertisement to ascertain his eligibility for the post in question. Had he gone through the eligibility criteria, he would not have applied for the post. Despite his ineligibility if the petitioner applied for the post, appeared in the written examination and even qualified the same, he cannot be permitted to raise fingers on the respondents for his own fault. (14). In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.