G. ROHINI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not treating the master Degree in Geophysics (MSc. Tech.) as one of the qualifications and eligibility criteria for admission into M. Tech. , computer Science and Technology as arbitrary, discreminatory and illegal and seeking a consequential direction to the 1 st respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for admission into M. Tech. , computer Science and Technology against the seat offered to him basing on the rank obtained by him in AUCET-2000. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a Post-Graduate degree holder in M. Sc. Tech. , in Geophysics from Andhra university. He is also holding a Diploma in computer Applications from JNTU, hyderabad. That apart, being a holder of ncc c Certificate, he is eligible to be considered under NCC quota. He states that in pursuance of the notification issued by the Andhra University inviting applications from eligible candidates for Andhra university Common Entrance Test-2000 (AUCET-2000) for admission into various post-Graduation courses offered by Andhra university for the Academic year 2000-2001, he appeared for the common entrance test held on 5. 6. 2000 seeking admission into m. Tech. Computer Science and Technology course against NCC quota. The petitioner secured the rank of 406 and he was required to appear for interview on 27. 7. 2000 for verification of certificates for admission under special categories of NCC/sports/ph/ defence/ex-service personnel. Accordingly, he appeared for counselling on 27. 7. 2000 and after verification of all the certificates, he was selected against the seat reserved under NCC quota. Since he was allotted a seat under Self-finance programme, he was directed to pay the required fee and at the time of payment of fee, University officials took an objection that Post graduates in Geophysics are not eligible for admission into M. Tech. Computer Science and Technology course, and therefore, he cannot be given admission. Though the petitioner tried his best to apprise the officials such an objection was never taken earlier and that one Post-Graduate degree holder in Geophysics by name m. Markandeya Rao and another candidate by name Durga Prasada Rao. , who was a post-Graduate in M. Sc. , Modem Physics, were given admission into M. Tech. Though the petitioner tried his best to apprise the officials such an objection was never taken earlier and that one Post-Graduate degree holder in Geophysics by name m. Markandeya Rao and another candidate by name Durga Prasada Rao. , who was a post-Graduate in M. Sc. , Modem Physics, were given admission into M. Tech. Computer science and Technology in the previous years, the officials refused to consider his case. Though he submitted a representation dated 1. 8. 2000 to the 1st respondent, there was no response. In the circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondents, the registrar of Andhra University filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner was called for counselling under NCC quota on 27. 7. 2000, however, on verification of his certificates it was found that M. Sc. Geophysics degree possessed by him is not mentioned in the eligibility criteria, and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for admission into M. Tech. Computer Science and Technology course. The respondents denied the averments of the petitioner that in the earlier years, one Sri M. Markandeya rao and Durga Prasada Rao were given admission though they were not possessing master degrees mentioned in the eligibility criteria. It is also stated that the qualification for admission into M. Tech (CST) and m. Tech (IT) was prescribed, by the Academic body i. e. , Board of Studies related to computer Science and Systems Engineering, and the qualification was mentioned in the brochure relating to AUCET-2000. It is further stated that the eligibility cirteria can be different from University to University and the Board of Studies related to Computer science and Systems Engineering decides the eligibility cirteria. The respondents further stated that the discrimination alleged by the petitioner is not correct as the University followed a uniform method for all admissions into M. Tech (CST)/ M. Tech (IT ). Further the representation submitted by the petitioner was placed before the concerned committee on 13. 8. 2000, but it was decided" that the request of the petitioner could not be accepted. The respondents contended that it is for the University to prescribe qualifications for admission as decided by the Academic Body i. e, Board of Studies and the contentions of the petitioner in this regard are not tenable, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief soughi in this writ petition. The respondents contended that it is for the University to prescribe qualifications for admission as decided by the Academic Body i. e, Board of Studies and the contentions of the petitioner in this regard are not tenable, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief soughi in this writ petition. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri C. S. K. V. Ramana murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri, T, Rajendra Prasad, learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as could be seen from the appendix-I to the Prospectus issued for AUCET-2000 prescribing the courses offered and the eligibility cirteria for admissions to M. Tech Computer Science and technology course, the qualifying examinations prescribed were (i) B. E. /b. Tech of Andhra University or its equivalent (ii); master of Science degree in Maths/ Appl. Maths/physics/electronics/computer science/ MCA of Andhra University or its equivalent. Therefore, the learned Counsel contends that since the candidates from various sources are permitted to apply and particularly Geophysics being physics related subject, there is no reason to exclude the same from being considered as qualifying examination for admission to M. Tech computer Science and Technology. He pointed out that the syllabus prescribed for the entrance examination is in no way related to most of the qualifications prescribed, and therefore, the classification sought to be drawn by the respondents in excluding M. Sc. (Geophysics) is not based on intelligible cirteria and has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The learned Counsel also contends that the petitioner was allowed to appear for common entrance test since the respondents found that M. Sc. (Geo Physics) could be considered as one of the eligibility cirteria prescribed for admission to M. Tech computer Science and Technology, and therefore, the objection taken by the respondents subsequently is not tenable. It is also contended that since other Universities have included the Master degree in geophysics in the eligibility cirteria for admission to M. Tech Computer Science and technology, the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to take admission to M. Tech Computer Science and Technology is arbitrary and discriminatory violating article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel relied upon the following judgements. State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Anita selva Zavier, AIR 1997 Mad. The learned Counsel relied upon the following judgements. State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Anita selva Zavier, AIR 1997 Mad. 168 ; P. Rajendran v. Stale of Madras, AIR 1968 SC 1012 ; Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 35 ; D. N. Chanchala v. State of mysore, AIR 3971 SC 1762; Pratibha Gupta v. State of Punjab, AIR 1998 Pandh 211; V. Ramalakshmi v. Director of Medical education, Chennai, AIR 1998 Mad. 55 . ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the eligibility cirteria has been fixed on the basis of the recommendations of the Academic Body i. e. , Board of Studies which consists of experts and it does not warrant interference by this Court. The learned Standing Counsel also relied upon Section 37 of the A. P. Universities Act contended that the petitioner is not entitled for admission unless he passed the qualifying examination prescribed by the University. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the contentions of both the parties the point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a direction can be issued by this Court to include the Master Degree in Geophysics (M. Sc. Tech.) in the eligibility cirteria for admission to M. Tech. Computer Science and technology? ( 8 ) AS can be seen from the counter- affidavit filed by the respondents the eligibility cirteria for the Post Graduate courses offered by the 2nd respondent- university have been prescribed by the university as recommended by the Academic body i. e. , Board of Studies related to computer Science and Systems Engineering which consists of experts. It is well settled that the decision taken by the expert committee will not be interfered with by this Court as a matter of course. ( 9 ) THIS Court does not possess the expertise to decide whether the Master degree in Geophysics (M. Sc. Tech.) can be considered as a requisite qualification for being included in the eligibility cirteria for admission to M. Tech. Computer Science and technology. The expert committee has considered all the relevant factors in detail and thought it fit not to include the Master degree in Geo physics while recommending the eligibility cirteria for admission to m. Tech Computer Science and Technology. The recommendations have been followed by the 2nd respondent-University. Computer Science and technology. The expert committee has considered all the relevant factors in detail and thought it fit not to include the Master degree in Geo physics while recommending the eligibility cirteria for admission to m. Tech Computer Science and Technology. The recommendations have been followed by the 2nd respondent-University. The fixation of eligibility cirteria for admission to the courses of study offered by the university is an academic question and this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india will not sit in appeal against the decision of the expert committee in academic matters. As such 1 am of the view that no writ of mandamus can be issued disturbing the eligibility cirteria fixed by the University. ( 10 ) IN this context it is relevant to note the following observations made by a constitution Bench of the Apex Court in university of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 . "the High Court does not appear to have considered the question as to whether it would be appropriate for the High Court to differ from the opinion of the Board when it was quite likely that the Board may have taken the view that the Degree of Master of arts of the Durham University, which appellant No. 2 had obtained, was equivalent to a high Second Class Master s Degree of an Indian University. This aspect of the questions (sic) purely to an academic matter and Courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the Board of experts was satisfied that appellant No. 2 fulfilled the first qualification. " ( 11 ) AGAIN in the case of Rajendra Prasad mathiff v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 sc 1448 , the Supreme Court held as follows:"it is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgement 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 within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within 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. " ( 12 ) SO far as the contention of the petitioner on the basis of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is true that the action impugned must not be arbitrary, but it should be based on some valid principle which must not be irrational or discriminatory and further the classification of persons should be on legitimate basis and there should be a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The ratio laid down in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the same effect. However, I am of the view that the said decisions are of no assistance to the case of the petitioner. ( 13 ) IN the present case the eligibility cirteria has been fixed by the 1st respondent- university on the basis of the recommendations of the Academic Body consisting of experts. Admittedly, the petitioner did not satisfy the said requirement. Tt is open for the 1st respondent-University to decide the eligibility cirteria for the courses of study offered by it and it has done so on the basis of the recommendations of the expert body. The petitioner has not brought to my notice any provision of law which requires all the Universities to prescribe a uniform qualification for the courses of study offered. ( 14 ) ALL the candidates applied for m. Tech. Computer Science and Technology are treated alike by the 1st respondent- university and there is no allegation that any candidate is given admission to M. Tech. Computer Science and Technology ignoring the qualification prescribed in the Brochure for the AUCET-2000. Since the petitioner did not possess the required qualification, he was denied admission. ( 15 ) THE equality clause contained in article 14 of the Constitution requires that all persons subjected to any legislation should be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. It does not prohibit reasonable classification which is rational. Since the petitioner did not possess the required qualification, he was denied admission. ( 15 ) THE equality clause contained in article 14 of the Constitution requires that all persons subjected to any legislation should be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. It does not prohibit reasonable classification which is rational. There are catena of decisions on this aspect and it is suffice to refer to the latest decision of the Apex Court in K. Thimmappa v. Chairman Central Board of Directors, SBI, air 2001 SC 467 , wherein the Supreme court has been pleased to hold: "before we deal with the respective contentions of the parties it would be appropriate for us to notice that what article 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. If the rule making authority takes care to reasonably classify persons for a particular purpose and if it deals equally with all persons belonging to a well defined class then it would not be open to the charge of discrimination. But to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled:- (A) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things which are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (B) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different basis and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object under consideration Article 14 of the Constitution does not insist that the classification should be scientifically perfect and a Court would not interfere unless the alleged classification results in apparent inequality. When a law is challenged to be discriminatory essentially on the ground that it denies equal treatment or protection, the question for determination by Court is not whether it has resulted in inequality but whether there is some difference which bears a just and reasonable relation to the object of legislation. Mere differentiation does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. Mere differentiation does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. To attract the operation of the clause it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is unreasonable or arbitrary; that it does not rest on any rational basis having regard to the object which the Legislature has in view, if a law deals with members of well-defined class then it is not obnoxious and it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application to other persons. It is for the rule making authority to determine what categories of persons would embrace within the scope of the rule and merely because some categories which would stand on the same footing as those which are covered by the rule are left out would not render the rule or the Law enacted in any manner discriminatory and violative of Article 14. It is not possible to exhaust the circumstances or criteria which may afford a reasonable basis for classification in all classes. It depends on the object of the legislation and what it really seeks to achieve. ( 16 ) IT is relevant to note that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is specifically stated that for the course of M. Tech (CST), the curriculum of all the branches of Engineering, Computer programming, Computer Languages and computer Laboratory are included as subjects and the students are also required to study the subject Computer Aided designs. The Board of Studies have taken into consideration ail these aspects while recommending the eligibility criteria for admission to M. Tech (CST)/m. Tech. (IT) it is also stated that the eligibility criteria can be different from University to Unversity and that the 1st respondent-University has adopted a uniform method for all the candidates seeking admission into m. Tech. (CST) offered by it as a course of study. ( 17 ) I find force in the said submissions of the respondent and in the circumstances, the classification sought to be drawn by the respondents while fixing the eligibility criteria for admission to M. Tech (CST) cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. (CST) offered by it as a course of study. ( 17 ) I find force in the said submissions of the respondent and in the circumstances, the classification sought to be drawn by the respondents while fixing the eligibility criteria for admission to M. Tech (CST) cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. In the light of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents explaining the aspects that have been taken into consideration while fixing the eligibility criteria, it cannot be said that the non- inclusion of Masters Degree in Geophysics in the eligibility criteria has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Hence, I am unable to agree with the contentions of the petitioner. ( 18 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioner are without any substance and no relief can be granted as prayed for. The writ petition therefore is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.