B. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE instant writ petition has been filed for issuing mandamus to the respondent-University to admit the petitioner in M. Sc. Geology. The averments made in the writ petition reveal that the petitioner had passed his B. Sc. in Geology from Chitrakut Gramodaya Vishwa Vidyalaya, chitrakut, Satna in 1st division in the year 1994-95 and secured 2038 marks out of 2800 marks, annexure-1 to the writ petition, The petitioner applied for the admission in M. Sc. previous in respondent-University and could not find any favour though the admissions had been made in the said course only on the basis of merits. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the candidates/students, who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner, from other institutions Universities have been admitted. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT-UNIVERSITY has filed the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit and the main ground taken by the respondent-University refusing the admission to the petitioner is that the respondent-University did not consider the degree of the petitioner equivalent to the decree of B. Sc. of the respondent-University. ( 4 ) HEARD Shri K. K. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Naqvi, learned counsel for the respondents. ( 5 ) IT has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent University was bound to recognise the decree of the petitioner as the Chitrakut University had been established under Act no. 9 of 1991 of the Madhya Pradesh Legislature and it is similar to other statutory universities recognised by the University Grants Commission and other national bodies and placed reliance upon the letter dated 16-1-1992 issued by the Association of Indian Universities in which the association in its 31st annual meeting held at Baroda had considered the question of mutual recognition of degrees awarded by the member universities and resolved as under : "resolved that the examinations of one university should be recognised by another on a reciprocal basis, provided that the entrance qualifications, duration of course and general standard of attainment are similar to those prescribed by the recognising University. " ( 6 ) IT has further been urged that the University Grants Commission has also included the said chitrakut University on its list of recognised Indian Universities vide its letter dated 12-3-1993. " ( 6 ) IT has further been urged that the University Grants Commission has also included the said chitrakut University on its list of recognised Indian Universities vide its letter dated 12-3-1993. The extract of the said letter runs as under: "the U. G. C. further resolved that the examinations of one University should be recognised by another University on a reciprocal basis provided that the entrance qualification, duration of course, and the general standard of attainment are similar to those prescribed by the recognising university In this connection, I may stress that the admission criteria, syllabus, scheme of examinations etc. of different courses are similar to and comparable with those corresponding courses offered by other Indian Universities. . . . . . " ( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit the University has relied upon the relevant provisions particularly, chapter XIV of Volume II of the Calendar of Banaras Hindu University which provides for the criteria for considering, the equivalence of degrees awarded by other universities. Rule 2 of chapter XIV of the aforesaid calendar reads as under: "rule 2. Basis of equivalence. In granting equivalence to the degrees of other universities, the following principle be applied : (1) If a University or Board of Education is established by an Act of State Legislature or the parliament, these degrees may mutually be recognised. (2) If some Indian Universities which have been recognised by us in the past, recognise the decrees of a newly established University or Board of Education, then we may also extend our recognition to it. (3) If there are institutions whose curriculam of studies are found satisfactory by us, we may recognise their examinations also (e. g. the National Defence Academy, Delhi, Swedish Students examination, Military Training School, etc.) (4) If for any reason, any one of our degrees is not recognized by another Indian University, then we may also not recognise the corresponding degree or degrees of that University. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the entire materials relating to Chitrakut University, the Expert Committee of the respondent University found the following position : (1) The course content? of B. Sc. Geology of the Chitrakut Gramodyog Vishwa Vidyalaya is not equivalent to the B. Sc. (hons.) Geology course of Banaras Hindu University. (2) The syllabus-of Chitrakut University does not give the distribution of marks for different subjects in the B. Sc. course. of B. Sc. Geology of the Chitrakut Gramodyog Vishwa Vidyalaya is not equivalent to the B. Sc. (hons.) Geology course of Banaras Hindu University. (2) The syllabus-of Chitrakut University does not give the distribution of marks for different subjects in the B. Sc. course. Further it does not have distribution of marks in each theory paper and practical in Geology. (3) The syllabus of Chitrakut University does not include Geological field training as a part of the course of study. Further no marks are allotted for field training. ( 9 ) THE respondent-University also considered the marks sheet B. Sc. Geology of Chitrakut university and came to the following conclusion : (a) Only two science subjects are taught in B. Sc. course. (b) Science subjects are given less importance in terms of distribution of marks in 1st, 3rd and 5th semesters. (c) Practicals are not included in the examinations in each semester. (d) Only one theory paper of Geology of a total of 40 marks is held in each semester. This too is insignificant as compared to the total marks (e. g. 40 marks out of 440 is 1st semester.) ( 10 ) THUS in nutshell the respondent-University has considered the case of the petitioner and recorded a finding by the Expert Committee that B. Sc. degree of Chitrakut University was not equivalent to that of the respondent-University, particularly, for the reasons mentioned by the respondent-University in its counter and supplementary counter affidavits referred to above. ( 11 ) A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in University of Mysory v. C. D. Govinda Rao and Anr. , AIR 1965 SC 491 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 mala fides 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. . . . . " ( 12 ) SIMILAR view has been taken by the Apex Court in M. S. Gupta etc. . . . 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. . . . . " ( 12 ) SIMILAR view has been taken by the Apex Court in M. S. Gupta etc. v. A. K. Gupta and others, 1979 (2) SCC 339 ; State of Bihar and Anr. v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee, 1975 (2) SCR 894 ; Chancellor and Anr. v. Dr. Bijay Nanda Kar and Ors. , 1984 (1) SCC 169 and Dr. Umakant v. Dr. Bhikha Lal Jain and Ors. , AIR 1991 SC 2272 . ( 13 ) 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 mala fides against the members of the Expert Committee, rejection of candidature on extraneous consideration etc. There is very little scope of judicial review of the assessment of the relative worth merit of the candidates taken by the Expert Committee and it can be done only if there is a violation of the statutory provisions or any other such compelling circumstances. ( 14 ) THE instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and Anr. , AIR 1986 SC 1448 , wherein the Court observed as under: "the equivalence has to be decided by the Karnataka University and it is not a matter of objective assessment or evaluation by the Court, it is for each University to decide the question of equivalence of an examination held by any other Board or University with the examination which primarily constitutes the basis of eligibility. . . . . . . It is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. . . . . . . It is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court 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 whether any examination held by a University outside the state is equivalent to an examination held with the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University. Here we find that no material has been placed before the Court on the basis of which the Court could say that the decision of the Karnataka University not to recognise the Higher Secondary Examination of the State of Rajasthan or the first year B. Sc. examination of the Universities of Rajasthan and udaipur as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, bangalore was arbitrary or not based on reasons. We must therefore reject this contention urged on behalf of the appellants. " ( 15 ) THEREFORE, it is the University itself which has to be take the decision and fix the standard for assessing the merits of the candidates for admission to achieve excellence in the post graduate specialities as one of the main aims of any educational institution may be to maintain or upgrade the standard of education : (vide State of U. P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, AIR 1992 SC 930 : (1992)2 UPLBEC 1288 (SC) and Ombir Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , AIR 1993 SC 975 : (1992) 2 uplbec 1295 (SC ). ( 16 ) THUS, in view of the above I am of the considered opinion that once the Expert Committee of the respondent-University has considered the case of the petitioner and examined the syllabus and other relevant materials for the purpose of determining the issue of equivalence of the B. Sc. degree of Chitrakut University and came to the conclusion that it cannot be termed as equivalent and cannot be recognised for the purpose of admission etc. degree of Chitrakut University and came to the conclusion that it cannot be termed as equivalent and cannot be recognised for the purpose of admission etc. and the respondent-University has placed sufficient materials, particularly minutes of the Expert Committee along with the counter affidavit there is no compelling ground which warrants review of the decision of the Expert committee. ( 17 ) THE writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. .