JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—Petitioner, who is a qualified Acharya, has sought direction against the respondent University declaring her to be eligible for admission to M Phil. Course in the subject of Sanskrit and to admit her for the said course if she is otherwise selected on merits. 2, Petitioner after doing her matriculation, passed one years course of Pragaya Shastri and thereafter underwent three years Vashist Shastri Course which she qualified in the month of October, 1987. After a further two years course, the petitioner qualified the Acharya examination of the respondent University in May, 1989 which she did from Sanskrit College, Solan. According to the petitioner, the respondent University conduct two type of examinations in Sanskrit at Graduation level, namely, Shastri (which is purely in Sanskrit subjects) and Vashist Shastri (all Shastri subjects alongwith additional subjects inclusive of English as elective subject— all of graduation level). It is further averred by the petitioner that Vashist Shastri Course has been declared equivalent to B- A. Hons. (Classics) by the respondent University. It is further the case of petitioner that the respondent University conducts two type of examinations in Sanskrit at Post Graduation level, i.e., M. A. (Sanskrit) and Acharya. As the petitioner is stated to have obtained Vashist Shastri Degree with additional subjects, therefore, according to her, she having done post graduation, i. e, Acharya is qualified for admission in the M. Phil. Course. It is stated by the petitioner that she did apply for being admitted to the M. Phil. Course on the basis of representation made by the respondent University in the Hand Book of Information for the year 1989-90 but her request for being considered to be admitted to M. Phil. Course was wrongly turned down by the respondent University 3. Respondent-University filed its return on the affidavit of Registrar of the University pointing it out that the University has not declared Vashist Shastri Degree to be equivalent to B. A. Honours in Sanskrit. It has been averred that according to the provisions contained in the Hand Book of Information, an Acharya is eligible to seek admission to M. A. (Sanskrit) only and not to M. Phil The provision of Vashist Shastri to be considered for admission to M Phil, is subject to amendment of the University Ordinances, which amendment still awaits the approval of the Chancellor. It has specifically been denied that the petitioner, who is Vashist Shastri and Acharya is eligible for being admitted to M.Phil. Course. According to the respondent, the Board of Studies (Oriental Titles) of the respondent University which had issued the Information contained in the Hand Book of Information on the basis of which the petitioner applied for being admitted to M. Phil, had no jurisdiction to declare equivalence of degrees and such provision contained in the Hand Book of Information is not binding on the respondent University. The matter is still under consideration of the University. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Jt has been urged on behalf of the respondent by placing reliance upon AIR 1965 supreme Court 4^1, The University of Mysore und others v. CD. Govinda Rao and another, and AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1448, Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, that in the academic matters regarding equivalence of University Degrees, it would not be proper for the Courts to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide equivalence to the degrees. 5. It has further been urged that the University has already taken a decision that the Acharya Course undergone by the petitioner is not equivalent to M. A. entitling her to be considered eligible for admission to M. Phil. Course and, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. It is not disputed that in the matters of equivalence, courts should not sit over the decisions of the University but when, on the face of the record, we find that the decision had not been arrived at by taking into consideration the relevant facts and the provisions contained in Ordinance and when the question relates purely to the interpretation of the clauses in the Ordinance of the University, it is permissible to go into the question as to whether the respondent is justified in denying admission to the petitioner. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1975 SC 2478, Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya and others v. Punjab University Chandigarh end another, wherein it has been held (hat Acharya is equivalent to M. A., the petitioner urges that decisions of the University is not only bad in law but is mala fide* It has further been urged that there is no question of making further provision so as to amend the Ordinance but it is a question of correctly interpreting provisions which are a heady contained in Ordinance. 7. In Rampalit Vyakaran Acharyas case (supra), the Supreme Court considered the equivalence of Acharya and found that Acharya is equivalent to M. A. In paras 8 and 9 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows:— " 8. That Acharya is equivalent to M. A. is clear from the letter No. F. 46-I/63-SU dated January 23, J964, from the Government of India, Ministry of Education to Education Secretaries of all the State Governments/Union Territory Governments/ Administrations and Registrars of all Universities on the subject of equivalence of Sanskrit Examinations as given in an enclosed statement. Entry 21 in column 1 of that statement mentions the Punjab University, Chandigarh, where Shastri is shown as equivalent to B. A- and Acharya to M.A. 9. From the letter of the Registrar, Punjab University, dated November 6, 1969 quoted above, it is clear that Shastri plus B. A. or Shastri plus Prabhakar is one category and is inferior to Acharya which is at par with Shastri plus M. A. Sanskrit, It is therefore, clear even from the above letter of the University that Acharyas need not have in addition an M. A. degree in Sanskrit in order to be entitled to the grade of Rs. 30 0-600 quoted above." (Emphasis supplied). Ordinance 1 4 of the First Ordinance of the respondent University provides for minimum qualification for admission to various courses and examinations. Minimum qualification for the Master of Philosophy (M. Phil) contained in the Ordinance is as follows s “Students with a consistent good academic report with first or high second class in Masters degree (with atleast 55% marks) the subject concerned or an allied subject or an equivalent degree of a foreign University. X X X X X 9. Minimum qualification for the Master of Philosophy (M. Phil) contained in the Ordinance is as follows s “Students with a consistent good academic report with first or high second class in Masters degree (with atleast 55% marks) the subject concerned or an allied subject or an equivalent degree of a foreign University. X X X X X 9. Minimum qualification for Acharya is also provided under the same Ordinance as follows:- Acharya (Sahityacharya, Shastri examination of this Vyakarancharya, University; Darshnacharya, OR Vedacharya, Shastri examination (with Jyotishacharya) other subjects) of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Delhi or the ?? Sympo-orna-nada Sanskrit Vishvavidya-laya, Varanasi; OR M. A. (Sanskrit) examination of a University established by law in India." 10. Regarding the aforementioned two provisions of the Ordinance, the contention on behalf of the respondent that for M. A. (Sanskrit) minimum qualification is Acharya, is not tenable. We find from the Ordinance that M. A. Sanskrit examination of the University is one of the minimum qualifications for admission to the course of Acharya. Shastri examination of the University is also one of the minimum qualifications for the course of Acharya. The provision as it found mention in the Hand Book of Examination was to the following effect: 11. Acharya : (a) Shastri Examination from H. P. University according to new syllabus, passed. or (b) Shastri examination from the National Sanskrit Organisation, Delhi or Varanasi Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi passed or (c) M. A. (Sanskrit) Examination passed. Note !—Those students who will pass Acharya examination after qualifying Vashist Shastri examination or Shastri. Shastri examination with English as Elective subject their degree will be equivalent to M. A. and they will be eligible for admission in M. Phil. Ph. D." 12. The aforementioned note appearing in the minimum qualifications prescribed for the Acharya Course was ordered to be deleted by the respondent University on the basis of a decision taken by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 22-12-1988, but, before that the Executive Council of the respondent University in its meeting held on 29th of March, 1986 and on the recommendations of the Academic Council, had decided as follows :— "That a candidate who has passed Vashista Shastri will be awarded the degree of B. A. Honours with classics which would be equivalent to B A. Hons, (Sanskrit). It was also approved in the meeting of the E C held on 1-6-1987 on the recommendations of the Academic Council/Faculty of Languages, Humanities and Fine Arts in the meeting held on 28-3-1987/23-3-1987 that a candidate who has passed Acharya after Shastri shall be eligible for M. A Sanskrit and who has passed Acharya after Vashist Shastri, his/her Acharya degree shall be equivalent to M. A. (Sanskrit) and therefore shall be a qualifying examination of M. Phil. (Sanskrit)". 13. We find from the record that the following reason prevailed with the Academic Council for rejecting the application of the petitioner for admission to the M. Phil. Course:— "The Council also considered the application form of Km. Rekha * Devi and on scrutiny found that she had only Vyakarana Acharya Degree but did not have M, A. Degree in Sanskrit, According to the Hand Book of Information for the Session 1989-90 and Ordinances of the University a person with Acharya is eligible to seek admission to M. A (Sanskrit) and not M. Phil. (Sanskrit). The Council, therefore, did not find her eligible for admission and for being included in the list of eligible candidates for interview." 14. In view of the above, the question that arises for consideration is that when Acharya is equivalent to M. A,, can the. petitioner be held in eligible for admission to M. Phil, Course when the respondent University in its Ordinance has provided minimum qualification for the course in question as M. A. in the subject concerned or in an allied subject. Petitioner is not simply Shastri but is a Vishista Shastri, namely, having done Shastri with additional subjects with English as one of the elective subject, of Graduation level. The stand of the University that the Petitioner St to have done M. A. (Sanskrit) for being eligible for seeking admission to M. Phil. Course is not tenable in view of the fact that M A Sanskrit Examinations one of the minimum qualifications prescribed fordoing course in Acharya. The stand of the University that the Petitioner St to have done M. A. (Sanskrit) for being eligible for seeking admission to M. Phil. Course is not tenable in view of the fact that M A Sanskrit Examinations one of the minimum qualifications prescribed fordoing course in Acharya. When M. A. Sanskrit is minimum qualification for undergoing the course of Acharya, in that case, a candidate Who has already done course of Acharya wh.ch, as per the aforementioned judgment In Rampalit Vyakaran Acharyas case (supra) has been held to be equivalent to M. A., there is no reason why a candidate having done the Acharya Course after obtaining Vishista Shastri Degree, be not considered to be having done the Master Degree in an allied subject which is one of the minimum qualification fixations for doing the M. Phil. Course. The respondent University?8 not right in saying that the petitioner was not eligible for being admitted to ?he M. Pml Course The Academic Council of the respondent University in fact arrived at 1(3 decision with reference to Hand Book of Information without referring to the provisions contained in Ordinance The Ordinance as it stands makes reason like petitioner eligible for admission to M. Phil. 15. In view of the above the impugned decision of the respondent University rejecting the application of petitioner for being considered as a qualified candidate for admission to M. Phil. Course is Quashed and set aside. The respondent University will consider the petitioner to be an eligible candidate for admission to M. Phil. Course. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.