ORDER 1. Heard. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the requirement of passing of graduation as to the educational qualification as provided in the advertisement issued by M.P. Public Service Commission dated 9.7.2014 (Annexure P/3) in the matter of appointment of Assistant Professor for Political Science under Madhya Pradesh Educational Services (Collegian Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 as amended vide amendments dated 14.8.2003 and 28.6.2008. It has been provided that applicant should be post graduate with 55% and 50% in the case of SC/ST category besides the candidates who have qualified allied subject in Public Administration or International Relations were also held eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science subject. However, in remark column it is also provided that such eligible candidate must have passed the graduation examination with political science as one of the subjects. Petitioners are aggrieved by incorporation of the aforesaid condition as regards educational qualification i.e. having passed graduation with one of the subject political science. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 284 to contend that Hon. Supreme Court has held that the qualification of post graduation degree in political science and that of public administration are at par in nature and no distinction can be made between two for the purpose of prescribing educational qualification to appoint an Assistant Professor. It is submitted that no further requirement can be made for educational qualification as provided for in the remark column in the advertisement. 3. Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that arguments advanced by him are misconceived and not in line and conformity with the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra). Requirement of graduation with Political Science as one of the subject in the advertisement in addition of post graduation is not contrary to the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court. Moreover, such requirement is no way in violation of any statutory rules also. The subject required to be taught by such Assistant Professors is political science, hence the requirement of graduation with subject political science cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable for more than one reasons. Moreover, such requirement is no way in violation of any statutory rules also. The subject required to be taught by such Assistant Professors is political science, hence the requirement of graduation with subject political science cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable for more than one reasons. It is a settled law that employer is placed at the best position to assess and prescribe educational qualification and eligibility criteria while inviting applications for appointment to a given post. Such matters are in fact in realm of evaluation of requirement for making appointment to a post and left to experts in that behalf. As such, the requirement as regards eligibility particularly educational qualification by itself cannot be subject matter of judicial review unless same is arbitrary, unreasonable or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science, post graduation either in political science or in public administration/international relations is prescribed with requirement of having graduated with one of the subject as Political Science. Such imposition of condition cannot be said to be arbitrary or in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as requirement of Political Science as one of the subject at graduate level has direct nexus with the object of appointment as Assistant Professor for Political Science. Such requirement cannot be said to be bad in law merely because the petitioner have not qualified graduation in political science as one of a subjects. 4. Prescription of educational qualification, academic accreditation has consistently been held by the apex Court and the various High Courts to be within the domain of universities and experts of subjects and unless such prescription of qualification is found to be in violation of any statutory enactment, the same is beyond the purview of judicial review. In the case of The University of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda Rao and another, AIR 1965 SC 491 , Hon. Justice Gajendragadkar, J (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench held that it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions on academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. This Principle was reiterated in J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr. This Principle was reiterated in J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr. ) v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, (1980) 3 SCC 418 ; wherein, it was held as under :- “While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that Courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But university organs, for that matter any authority in our system, are bound by the rule of law and cannot be law unto themselves. If the Chancellor or any other authority lesser in level decides an academic matter or an educational question, the Court keeps its hands off; but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the Court out.” 5. This view also gets support from the following judgments P.M.Bhargava and others v. University Grant Commission and another, (2004) 6 SCC 661 and Medical Council of India v. Sarang and others, (2001) 8 SCC 427 . 6. In this view of the foregoings, the petition sans merits, therefore same is hereby dismissed.