Judgment :- Kerala Agricultural University issued Notification dated 26-6-84 inviting applications for the post of Junior Assistant Professors in Agricultural Botany and other disciplines. Again on 22-10-1956 University issued notification No. GA/E2/13507/ 86 inviting applications from qualified candidates to the post of Junior Assistant Professors in Agricultural Botany and other disciplines. Candidates holding Masters degree in the concerned subjects who applied in pursuance to the earlier notification dated 26-6-84 for the post of Junior Assistant Professors were not required to apply again. Essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant Professor were:- a) Bachelors Degree in agriculture/ horticulture b) Masters Degree in the concerned subject with an overall grade point (for short O.G.P.A.) of 3.00 out of 4.00 under Trimester System or atleast 55% marks under Traditional System. In the absence of Masters Degree holders, candidates with Bachelors Degree with OGPA of 3.00 out of 4.00 under Trimester System or 55% marks under Traditional System was to be considered as sufficient qualification. In the case of SC/ST candidates, a pass in B.Sc. (Agriculture)/B.Sc. (Horticulture) was to be considered as sufficient qualification. Petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant Professor in Agricultural Botany. He had secured the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry from Govind Ballabh Pant, Krishi EvamPraudyogik Vishwavidyala, Pantnagar (Formerly U.P. Agricultural University). Thereafter he took a degree of Master of Science (Agriculture) in Plant Breeding from the very same University in first division. His application was rejected as per Ext. P4 communication stating that the degree awarded by G.B. Pant University is not recognised by Kerala Agricultural University as equivalent to B.Sc. (Agriculture). His application happened to be rejected as a consequence of the decision taken by the Academic Council of the Agricultural University on 8-9-83 to de recognise the 3 year B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree (10+3 or 10+2+3 or 11 + 3) offered by other Agricultural Universities and Traditional universities in India for recruitment and for higher studies in Kerala Agricultural University from 8-9-83 onwards. 2. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that prior to the decision taken by the Academic Council of the Kerala Agricultural University at its 32nd meeting held on 8-9-83, degree of B.Sc. (Agriculture) issued by all other Agricultural Universities and Traditional Universities in India was a qualification recognised by the Kerala. Agricultural University. 2. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that prior to the decision taken by the Academic Council of the Kerala Agricultural University at its 32nd meeting held on 8-9-83, degree of B.Sc. (Agriculture) issued by all other Agricultural Universities and Traditional Universities in India was a qualification recognised by the Kerala. Agricultural University. On account of this recognition, it is argued, petitioner underwent his studies in Govind Ballabh Pant University and took the degree on the belief that he can get appointment to the various posts in the Kerala Agricultural University. That right of the petitioner has now been denied by de recognising the3yearB.Sc. (Agriculture) degree given by other Agricultural Universities. According to the petitioner, this action on the part of the University is illegal and it has to be set-at-naught. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent, the Registrar of the Kerala Agricultural University. The contention taken therein is as follows:- Petitioner is a graduate having obtained degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry and a post graduate having obtained a degree of Master of Science in Agriculture. Both qualifications were conferred by Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. Petitioner underwent 3 year course for taking the degree of Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) and Animal Husbandry. That degree was not at all recognised by the second respondent for the purpose of higher education as well as for employment. The Academic Council of the second respondent is the competent authority to decide whether the degree conferred by other Universities are to be considered equivalent to the degree conferred by the second respondent. The Council was convinced of the fact that the syllabus curriculum of the 3 year B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree programme conducted by the Govind Ballabh Pant University are not comparable with the 4 year B.Sc. (Agriculture) programme conducted by the second respondent. Hence University took a decision on 8-9-83 to de recognise the 3 year B. Sc (Agriculture) Degree offered by other Universities. It was also decided that the said decision shall not be applicable to persons who are already employed as Teachers and Agricultural officers under the second respondent. Eventhough the petitioner had acquired qualification of B.Sc. Hence University took a decision on 8-9-83 to de recognise the 3 year B. Sc (Agriculture) Degree offered by other Universities. It was also decided that the said decision shall not be applicable to persons who are already employed as Teachers and Agricultural officers under the second respondent. Eventhough the petitioner had acquired qualification of B.Sc. (Agriculture) and Animal Husbandry prior to 8-9-83, he is not entitled to get employment subsequent to that date because of the decision taken by the Academic Council. The contention of the petitioner that the decision taken by the Academic Council on 8-9-83 to de recognise the 3 year B.Sc, (Agriculture) Degree course of other Agricultural Universities or Traditional Universities was without a proper assessment and evaluation of the academic standards of those Universities is baseless and has only to be rejected. The Academic Council constituted a sub committee considering all top academicians to ascertain their views and opinion in the matter. The sub committee thoroughly examined all the aspects including the syllabus and curriculum of each course and found that the syllabus of the 3 year B.Sc (Agriculture) programme of other Universities did not cover all the essential requirements of an Agricultural graduate to the expected standard. It was also found that the 3 year course was not comparable with the 4 year B.Sc. Agricultural Programme conducted by the second respondent. Second respondent is an autonomous Body which has its own Rules and Statutes. Decision taken by the Academic Council in accordance with the Rules and Statutes to de recognise the 3 year degree course is not to be interfered with by this Court. On this basis, it is contended that petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for. 4. As stated earlier, the main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the decision taken by the Academic Council at its meeting held on 8-9-83 can have only prospective operation. In other words, the said decision cannot apply to the degrees obtained by various candidates from the various Universities prior to 8-9-83. Before 8-9-83 the 3 year B.Sc. Agricultural degrees granted by other Agricultural Universities and Traditional Universities were recognised by the second respondent. The students who took the degrees were having the right to be considered for appointment to the various posts under the second respondent on the basis of those degrees. Before 8-9-83 the 3 year B.Sc. Agricultural degrees granted by other Agricultural Universities and Traditional Universities were recognised by the second respondent. The students who took the degrees were having the right to be considered for appointment to the various posts under the second respondent on the basis of those degrees. By the decision of 8-9-83, that right of those graduates have been interfered with. It is contended that even if the Academic Council is the Body entitled to decide on the recognition of the degrees granted by the other Universities, it cannot de recognise a degree with retrospective effect. The decision can apply only to degrees granted by other Universities subsequent to 8-9-83. 5. The Academic Council of the Kerala Agricultural University issued the following order:--"Considering the opinion of Heads of Departments that the syllabus of 3 year B.Sc. (Ag.) degree programmes are not comparable with 4 years B.Sc. (Ag.) programme regarding the content and time really taken for teaching. The sub-committee suggested that the courses 10+3 or 10+2+3 or ll+3 pattern need not be made equivalent to 10+2+4 pattern both for appointment and for P.O. studies. The matter was again placed before the Academic Council at its 32nd meeting held on 8-9-83 for a final decision and the Council has agreed the suggestion the above subcommittee. In pursuance of the decision of Academic Council meeting held on 8-9-83 it is hereby ordered that three year B.Sc. (Ag)degrees (10+3 or 10+2+3 or ll+3 pattern) offered by other Agricultural Universities or Traditional Universities in India are not recognised for recruitment and for higher studies in Kerala Agricultural University from 8-9-1983 onwards". From this, it is evident that the 3 year B.Sc. (Ag) degrees (10+3 or 10+2+3 or ll+3 pattern) offered by other Agricultural Universities are de recognised from 8-9-83 for recruitment and higher studies in the Kerala Agricultural University. As a result of that, no one who has obtained a 3 year B.Sc. (Ag) degree can apply for recruitment or for higher studies under the second respondent. This decision was taken on the basis of the finding arrived at by the Academic Council that it is not equivalent to the 4 year B.Sc. Agricultural Programme of the second respondent University. When the Academic Council came to the conclusion that the 3 year B.Sc. Agricultural pattern is not equivalent to the 4 year B.Sc. This decision was taken on the basis of the finding arrived at by the Academic Council that it is not equivalent to the 4 year B.Sc. Agricultural Programme of the second respondent University. When the Academic Council came to the conclusion that the 3 year B.Sc. Agricultural pattern is not equivalent to the 4 year B.Sc. Agricultural Programme, can this court direct the second respondent to engage persons who took the degree under the 3 year programme to teach the students of the 4 year B.Sc. Agricultural Programme. According to me, the answer must be in the negative. The question whether a B.Sc. (Ag) degree can satisfy the requirements of the 2nd respondent is purely an academic matter and court should not normally interfere with it is more so when it is seen them experts, in the sub committee constituted by the Academic Council went into the entire issue and came to the conclusion that degree granted by the 3 year programme is not sufficient to meet the requirements of 2nd respondent. This view has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (AIR 1965 SC 491). Constitution Bench observed: "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 the courts generally can be". In the instant case, the Academic Council constituted a sub committee to go into the details of the syllabus and pattern of studies of the different programme. On such study, they came to the conclusion that the 3 year B.Sc. Agricultural degree pattern is far below in standard in comparison with the 4 year B.Sc. Agricultural Programme. Consequently, they decided to de recognise the 3 year B.Sc. Agricultural Programme for recruitment to the staff and for selection to the higher course of studies under the second respondent. From the materials placed before court by the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent it is clear that the Academic Council examined all aspects carefully before taking the decision dated 8-9-83. In such a state of affairs, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, I do not find my way to interfere with the same. 6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner brought to my notice the following decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in B.L Asawav. In such a state of affairs, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, I do not find my way to interfere with the same. 6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner brought to my notice the following decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in B.L Asawav. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1982 SC 933), Punjab University v. Devjani Chakabarti (AIR 1984 SC 1444) and Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana (AIR 1987 SC 2027) in support of his contention that the candidates who obtained B.Sc. Agricultural Degree from other Universities prior to 8-9-83 are entitled to be considered for recruitment to the various posts notified by the second respondent. In the first decision, the question that came up for decision was whether post graduate degree in Forensic Medicine awarded by the University of Bihar was recognised by the University of Rajasthan. Their Lordships observed: "In the case of a Post graduate degree in the concerned subject awarded by a statutory Indian University, no recognition or declaration of equivalence by any other University is called for. This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree-basic as well as Post graduate-that is awarded by a statutory Indian University and which has been specifically recognised by the Indian Medical Council". I fail to see how this decision is of any help to the petitioner. A University can grant a Medical Degree or a Post Graduate Degree in Medicine only if it is recognised by the Indian Medical Council. Once the degree granted by a University is recognised by the Indian Medical Council, that degree must be considered to be equivalent qualification to the same degree granted by any other University because such degrees are recognised by the Indian Medical Council. In the second case, the issue raised before Their Lordships are the following:-The Punjab University Syndicate on 10-2-1977 decided to recognise the 12th standard examination under the new 10+2+3 educational system as equivalent to Pro-Medical/Pre-Eng Tendering /B.A. Part I/B.Sc. Part I/B. Com. Part I examination according to combination of subjects. On 4-6-1978 the 11th standard examination was recognised as equivalent to Pre-University examination. However, on the recommendation of the Committee of Experts, the Syndicate of the University on 18-4-80 decided not to consider 11th standard examination as equivalent to Pre-University examination. Part I/B. Com. Part I examination according to combination of subjects. On 4-6-1978 the 11th standard examination was recognised as equivalent to Pre-University examination. However, on the recommendation of the Committee of Experts, the Syndicate of the University on 18-4-80 decided not to consider 11th standard examination as equivalent to Pre-University examination. As per the decision of 7-5-80, the 12th standard examination was treated as equivalent to Pre-University examination. Certain students who passed 12th "standard and 11th standard challenged the same. On this issue Their Lordships came to the conclusion that the decision of the Punjab University is having prospective operation only and that they did not become retrospective merely because they subsequently applied to students who had already started their educational career. Those students who could not continue their higher education on account of the above mentioned orders were thus allowed to pursue their higher studies. This decision, according to me, has no applicability to the instant case where the petitioner seeks to get appointment on the basis of a degree which he secured prior to 8-9-83 which has now found by the Academic Council to be not sufficient to the requirements of the University. 7. The facts which led to the third decision are as follows:-Certificate course in Physical Education of an institute recognised by the Government of Haryana was de recognised. The question that came up for consideration was whether persons who secured the above certificate could be appointed to the post subsequent to that de recognition. Their Lordships took the view that it will be unjust to tell the petitioner that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognised, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile because during the pendency of the course it was de recognised. This was so done because their Lordships found that the petitioners joined the course on the basis of the recognition given by the State of Haryana and the recognition was in force at the time when they joined the course. Such details are wanting in the instant case. Petitioner has no case that he joined G.B. Pant University only because its degree was recognised by the 2nd respondent. Nor has he got a case that he was mislead by the second respondent to joint that University and consequently he suffered any loss. Such details are wanting in the instant case. Petitioner has no case that he joined G.B. Pant University only because its degree was recognised by the 2nd respondent. Nor has he got a case that he was mislead by the second respondent to joint that University and consequently he suffered any loss. In such a situation, according to me, this decision, on facts, cannot apply to the instant case. The Academic Council after a thorough examination of the syllabus and the course of study came to the conclusion that a person who secured qualification under the 3 year B.Sc. Agricultural Programme is not suitable for giving instruction to the 4 year B.Sc. Agricultural students. When the Academic Council has taken such a stand, this court in exercise of the power under Article 226 is not to interfere with the same and hold that petitioner who has taken B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree under the 3 year programme is suitable for the post advertised by the second respondent. 8. The contention that the decision of the Academic Council has wrongly been given retrospective operation is also devoid of any merit. The decision is prospective only for it affects the appointments to be made after 8-9-83. It has been stated that it will not affect the service conditions of those who are already in the service. If it is to have retrospective operation then those in service will be adversely affective. The contention that the decision affects those who secured degree in B.Sc. (Ag) under the 3 year programme from other universities prior to 8-9-83 are adversely affected and consequently the decision is retrospective cannot be accepted. If this argument is to hold good then the decision of the Academic Council should not apply to those B.Sc. (Ag) degree holders who passed the examination prior to 8-9-83 from other universities for many years to come. This will lead to absurd consequences. This court is not to create such a ridiculous situation. 9. Petitioner has no case that he had taken the B.Sc. (Ag) degree after undergoing 4 year programme. The requirement of the second respondent University will not be met by such a candidate. Therefore petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for. Original Petition fails. It is dismissed.