JUDGMENT : 1. Leave granted in both the petitions. 2. The advertisement for the post given by the College clearly stated that the candidate must have a Post-graduation Degree in History as a relevant subject. It is not disputed that the appellant is M.A. in Budhist Studies and M.Phil in History. The High Court unfortunately interfered with the appellant's selection on the ground that the appellant did not have M.A. Degree in the relevant subject meaning thereby the concerned subject, viz., History. It has been explained both by the appellant as well as by the University in their appeal memos that on account of the direction of the University Grants Commission, to facilitate the interdisciplinary transfers, the original requirement of the degree in "the concerned subject" was replaced by the degree in "a relevant subject" as a qualification. According to the University, the Buddhist Studies is a subject relevant to the teaching of History. Whether the subject is relevant or not, it is for the University to decide and the Courts would not be justified in substituting their views in the matter. The High Court, therefore, committed two errors, firstly, in not reading the words "a relevant subject" for the original requirement of "the concerned subject" and instead reading it as "the relevant subject" and secondly, in substituting its view as to whether the Buddhist Studies was a relevant subject or not. 3. We, therefore, set aside the decisions of the High Court and declare that the appellant was properly selected by the College for the post of the Lecturer in History. Accordingly, the selection as well as the appointment of the appellant made to the post of the Lecturer in History is held to be valid. He will, therefore, stand reinstated in service accordingly. The appeals are allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.