Judgment :- In W.P.No.12864 of 1995, the petitioner had prayed for a Mandamus to direct the respondent/Gandhigram Rural Institute, which is a deemed university, to implement the decision of the Selection Committee and approval of the Syndicate in respect of the appointment of one post of Lecturer in Rural Industries and Management. In the meantime, the Syndicate of the respondent had approved the appointment of one K.Raju as Lecturer by resolution dated 9.9.1995. In W.P.No.16964 of 1995, the petitioner had sought for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said resolution and to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner. 2. The respondent University is a reputed institution involved in the spread of Gandhian Philosophy, especially in the context of rural life. Several courses relating to those issues are being conducted by the respondent. The dispute in these writ petitions is with reference to the appointment to the post of Lecturer in Rural Industries and Management. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the second respondent to the said post. The petitioner was already working in the respondent University as a Supervisor from 1977, and as on the date when the writ petition was filed, was working as a Senior Technical Assistant, to which post he was promoted in the year 1983. 3. In the advertisement issued for the post of Lecturer, the following eligibility criteria/ qualifications were prescribed: QUALIFICATION: (i) A Post Graduate Degree in Rural Industries and Management/M.A. in Economics with a minimum of 55% marks. (ii) The candidate should have passed the eligibility test for lectureship conducted by the University Grants Commission/CSIR or a similar test accredited by the U.G.C. (iii) A candidate who had submitted their Ph.D. Thesis on or before 31.12.1992 and candidates who received M.Phil on or before 31.12.1992 will be exempted from passing the NET examinations for lectureship. EXPERIENCE: Candidates with experience in managing rural industrial units and teaching experience at Under Graduate and Post Graduate levels will be preferred. 4. For better appreciation of the dispute in this case, in the following tabulated column, the qualifications of both the contesting parties as on the date of appointment are detailed. Petitioner Second respondent 1. Diploma in Rural Sciences 2. M.A. (Economics) (53%) 3. B.Ed. 4. 4. For better appreciation of the dispute in this case, in the following tabulated column, the qualifications of both the contesting parties as on the date of appointment are detailed. Petitioner Second respondent 1. Diploma in Rural Sciences 2. M.A. (Economics) (53%) 3. B.Ed. 4. M.A. (Gandhian Thought) (57.4%) While his other qualifications are not mentioned in any of the counter affidavits, there is no dispute over the position that he holds Post Graduate Degree in M.A. (Rural Economics and Extension Education) with 57% and M.Phil. in Economics (65%). 5. A perusal of the above comparison will show that as against the requirement in the advertisement, a P.G. Degree in Rural Industries and Management or P.G. Degree in Economics with a minimum of 55% marks, the petitioner does not have the P.G. Degree in Rural Industries and Management and in M.A. (Economics), his marks are only 53%. As far as the second respondent is concerned, he is only holding a P.G. Degree in M.A. (Rural Economics and Extension Education) (57%) and it is not the subject of Rural Industries and Management, nor does he possess Post Graduate Degree in M.A. (Economics). Therefore, strictly speaking, both are not qualified in terms of the specific requirements under the advertisement. However, the Selection Committee, in their minutes of the meeting, recommended the name of the petitioner, placing him as No.1 and also placed the name of the second respondent as "No.2 Waiting list". The Syndicate, however, appointed the second respondent after finding that the petitioner did not possess the minimum marks of 55% in M.A. - Economics. 6. Aggrieved by the same, Mr.P.Jyothimani, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends as follows: (i) While the second respondent does not hold either of the two alternative specialities as required under the advertisement, the petitioner had secured 57.4% in M.A. (Gandhian Thought), which was also equivalent to M.A. (Rural Industries and Management). While the Institute was prepared to treat the speciality of the second respondent, namely, Rural Economics and Extension Education as equivalent to M.A. (Economics), they were not prepared to recognize the qualification of the petitioner also as equivalent. When the Institute had thought it fit to grant exemption in the case of the second respondent not possessing the required speciality, there is no reason why such relaxation of the required speciality was not given to the petitioner. When the Institute had thought it fit to grant exemption in the case of the second respondent not possessing the required speciality, there is no reason why such relaxation of the required speciality was not given to the petitioner. On the other hand, the Syndicate had chosen to reject the petitioner's name by stating that the petitioner was not considered as he did not secure 55% in M.A. (Economics). Added to the qualifications which were better than that of the second respondent, the petitioner was already serving the first respondent Institution for over 17 years and had better experience. (ii) If there was any disagreement with the panel submitted by the Selection Committee, then, in terms of Clause XII of the Memorandum of Association of the Institute, the Syndicate should have submitted the case to the Chancellor for final order. This requirement was not complied with by the respondent-Institution. (iii) While considering the claims of the various candidates, the petitioner, as an individual who was working in the Institute for over 17 years, his claims should have been given preference and the minimum marks, namely, 55% should not have been insisted upon in terms of the U.G.C. Notification, 1998. 7. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel for the second respondent in W.P.No.16964 of 1995, contended that the P.G. Degree in Rural Economics and Extension Education was treated as equivalent to M.A. (Economics) by the respondent-Institution. Specialisation in Gandhian Thought and Peace Science, as acquired by the petitioner, cannot, in any manner, be treated as equivalent to M.A. (Economics). The University, by appropriate proceedings, had rightly treated the qualification of the second respondent as equivalent to M.A. (Economics). The discretion to treat different courses as equivalent to other courses, was with the University and it was a matter of academic expertise and policy of the University, which will not be interfered with by the Court. It is an issue for the academic experts of the particular institution to decide. 8. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY (1986 (Supp) S.C.C. 740). The Supreme Court held that the discretion to determine the qualification was vested with the University and the University was competent to determine the said question. Such determination, normally, does not involve arbitrariness, and interference by the Courts were not called for. 9. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY (1986 (Supp) S.C.C. 740). The Supreme Court held that the discretion to determine the qualification was vested with the University and the University was competent to determine the said question. Such determination, normally, does not involve arbitrariness, and interference by the Courts were not called for. 9. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LATA ARUN ( (2002) 6 SCC 252 ), with reference to the policy of prescribing minimum educational qualification for appointment into courses of the University and recognising certain educational qualifications as equivalent to the prescribed qualification, the Supreme Court held that such matters fell within the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with power under the statute and it was not open to the Court to interfere in such matters unless there were allegations of mala fides or unfairness. 10. Mr.Gopalratnam, appearing for the first respondent-Institution, after referring to the mutual qualifications of the contesting parties, contended that the petitioner should have secured 55% either in M.A. (Rural Industries and Management) or in M.A. (Economics) The petitioner had secured only 53% in M.A. (Economics) and 57.4% in M.A. (Gandhian Thought), which did not satisfy the essential qualification. Though the Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner, the Syndicate had to reject the name of the petitioner, as he did not have the essential qualification of 55% in M.A. (Economics). The power of the Selection Committee was only to recommend suitable persons and the ultimate authority vests only with the Syndicate. It was not mandatory on the part of the Syndicate to accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Even though the petitioner was not qualified, he was called for interview on sympathetic grounds, considering his long experience. As regards the second respondent, his speciality in Rural Economics and Extension Education was accepted to be equivalent to M.A. (Economics). Only in view of the said background, the Madras University had permitted him to do M.Phil. in Economics. Therefore, according to the respondent-institution, M.A. (Rural Economics and Extension Education) was equivalent to M.A. (Economics) of other universities. Therefore, the Syndicate had rightly selected the second respondent. Only in view of the said background, the Madras University had permitted him to do M.Phil. in Economics. Therefore, according to the respondent-institution, M.A. (Rural Economics and Extension Education) was equivalent to M.A. (Economics) of other universities. Therefore, the Syndicate had rightly selected the second respondent. As regards the contention that the issue should have been placed before the Chancellor, learned counsel states that such a necessity did not arise, as the appointee is one of the candidates recommended by the Selection committee and the Syndicate had not rejected the Selection Committee's proposals in toto. Only in the event of the recommendation of the Selection Committee being completely reversed or ignored, Clause XII will apply. 11. I will take up for consideration, points raised for consideration by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the order as raised by the learned counsel, as indicated above. 12. Point No.(i): It is not disputed before me that as far as the speciality advertised for the appointment, namely, Rural Industries and Management is concerned, both did not possess the Post Graduate Degree in the said speciality. The other alternative qualifying speciality is M.A. (Economics). The petitioner possesses the said Degree, but has scored only 53%. According to the Institute, they have preferred the second respondent, as he had scored 57% in M.A. (Rural Economics and Extension Education) and the said Degree was treated as equivalent to M.A. (Economics). The crux of the issue, therefore, is to see whether the decision of the Syndicate in treating the speciality of the second respondent as equivalent to M.A. (Economics) is correct or not. 13. Most of the materials produced by both sides do not help their respective claims. Mr.Jyothimani sought to refer to G.O.Ms.No.530, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 11.10.1988 in support of his contention that all the Degrees mentioned thereunder have to be treated as equivalent and therefore, the speciality in Gandhian Thought also should be treated as equivalent to M.A. (Rural Industries and Management). Item No.2 of the List refers to M.A. in Rural Education and Extension Education and Item 9 mentions M.Phil. in Gandhian Thought and Peace Science. 14. Item No.2 of the List refers to M.A. in Rural Education and Extension Education and Item 9 mentions M.Phil. in Gandhian Thought and Peace Science. 14. Before embarking upon a discussion on the mutual contentions, it is sufficient to bear in mind that the decisions and orders of the Government or the University to treat certain specialities either for: (i) eligibility for the purpose of employment or (ii) as equivalent degrees for the said posts, cannot have any relevance to the dispute raised in these writ petitions. We are not concerned with the Government treating certain specialities in the P.G. Degrees as equivalent to the prescribed P.G. Degrees, for the purpose of employment. G.O.Ms.No.530, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 11.10.1988 is nothing more than an order directing recognition of the P.G. Degrees listed thereunder as equivalent to the corresponding courses offered by other Universities for the purpose of employment. The underlined expression makes it clear that those specialities of the Degrees obtained in the respondent-Institute shall be treated as equivalent Degrees obtained in those specialities from other Universities. The effect of the Government Order cannot be that all the Degrees enlisted thereunder should be treated as equivalent to each other and that in the case of an advertisement requiring one of those qualifications, it will be sufficient if the candidates possesses any one of the ten qualifications listed thereunder. I am unable to agree. To accept the contention of the petitioner would mean that M.A. in Rural Development, shown as Item No.1, should be treated as equivalent to M.A. in Tamil and Indian Literature. Therefore, the said Government Order does not help the petitioner in any manner. 15. Likewise, learned counsel representing both the respondents also placed reliance on series of communications which are also to the same effect. In support of the contention that the Degree obtained by the second respondent, namely, in Rural Economics and Extension Education, was equivalent to M.A. (Economics), number of documents were relied on to show that both the specialities are equivalent. In my opinion, all the documents which have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the said purpose have no relevance and cannot be sustained. The communication dated 20.11.1985 to the Registrars of other Universities is only a letter seeking recognition for certain courses. In my opinion, all the documents which have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the said purpose have no relevance and cannot be sustained. The communication dated 20.11.1985 to the Registrars of other Universities is only a letter seeking recognition for certain courses. The letter dated 25.11.1985 to the Secretary to the Government is also a similar request for recognition of the courses for employment opportunities as equivalent to the corresponding courses of other universities. The proceedings dated 16.6.1990 of the Registrar of Institute is only a decision of the Syndicate to recognise the Degree of the Universities mentioned thereunder. The communication of Utkal University dated 20.11.1994 refers to their decision that the P.G. Speciality in Rural Economics and Extension Education of the petitioner Institute would be recognised as equivalent to their corresponding M.A. Degree. The letter dated 4.8.1995 of the Head of the Department to the Registrar of the first respondent Institute stating that M.A. (Economics) of other Universities can be treated as M.A. (Rural Economics), has no legal sanctity. He is not the authority for granting any recognition or declaration of equivalence. It is not the decision of the appropriate authority. The proceedings of the meeting of the Standing Committee for recognition of the courses offered by other Universities dated 30.9.1995 is only a subsequent event after the filing of the writ petitions and hence, not relevant to the writ petitions. It is not also applicable to the issue before us. One of the decisions is that M.A. (Economics) of Kashmir University can be considered as equivalent to M.A. (Rural Economics and Extension Education) of the first respondent Institute. Similar is the proceeding dated 28.10.1995, the Committee approving M.A. (Economics) of Vinoba Bhave University as equivalent. I fail to understand how any of these proceedings can have any relevance to the case on hand. There is absolutely no material to show that the competent Committee constituted by the respondent Institute had, at any time before the impugned appointment, decided and resolved that M.A. (Rural Economics and Extension Education) of the Institute can be treated as equivalent to M.A. (Economics). Not a single reference has been made to any such decision having been taken by the Syndicate. 16. Not a single reference has been made to any such decision having been taken by the Syndicate. 16. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the decision of the first respondent to treat the second respondent's qualification as equivalent to M.A. (Economics) is certainly erroneous. However, coming to the question of relief, it is not possible to provide any relief to the petitioner. In a writ petition or for that matter even in a civil proceeding, the petitioner/ plaintiff will not be entitled to any relief unless he is able to show that he is entitled to succeed on his own. If the petitioner's qualifications do not satisfy the eligibility criteria, then he is not entitled for any relief. It is true that the equivalent qualification, as upheld in the case of the second respondent, is not legally sound. But, that alone cannot provide any positive relief to the petitioner if he is himself not qualified in terms of the qualifications advertised for. Unless he has a right to be appointed, he will not be entitled to question the right or otherwise of the person who has been appointed. The defect in the second respondent's case will not improve the claim of the petitioner. 17. It is true that the petitioner can raise the issue of discriminatory action in the matter of granting relaxation and that relaxation shown to the second respondent should have been applied to him also. But apart from the fact that the petitioner cannot claim relaxation as a matter of right, his specialisation is of Gandhian Thought and has no connection with the subject of Economics. At least in the case of the second respondent, his speciality is in Rural Economics and Extension Education which is somewhat connected with Economics, though the syllabus or course content relating to both the qualifications cannot be strictly equated. The second respondent also has an added advantage of having the qualification of M.Phil. in Economics. 18. Therefore, in view of the fact that at any rate the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, he cannot succeed in the writ petition merely on the basis that relaxation in favour of the second respondent was wrong. When both the contesting applicants do not satisfy the basic requirements, it is certainly open to the appointing authority to assess the comparative merits of the contesting parties and give preference to one of them. When both the contesting applicants do not satisfy the basic requirements, it is certainly open to the appointing authority to assess the comparative merits of the contesting parties and give preference to one of them. It is also pertinent to bear in mind that there is no specific allegation of mala fides as against the respondents on any definite ground. 19. Point No.(ii): This objection relates to Clause XII of the Memorandum of Association. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there being a disagreement by the Syndicate with the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the issue should have been referred to the Chancellor. Clause XII deals with Selection Committee and the paragraph which is relied upon is as follows: "If the Syndicate is unable to accept the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reason and submit the case to the Chancellor for final order." The grievance of the petitioner is that since the recommendation of the Selection Committee was not acceptable to the Syndicate, they should have referred the issue to the Chancellor. 20. I am unable to sustain the said contention. As stated earlier, the Selection Committee had only indicated the name of the petitioner as the first choice and the name of the second respondent has been indicated as the second choice and as waiting list as against the name of the second respondent. It is, therefore, a panel of two names. When a panel is sent, it is certainly open to the authorities to choose between the two names. Clause XII is visualised only in the context of the entire recommendation being turned down or rejected or overruled. In the event of the Selection Committee selecting only one name or when more than one name are mentioned, the entire panel being not agreeable to the Syndicate, only in such circumstances, reference to the Chancellor could be contemplated. Clause XII is intended to operate only when the decision of the Selection Committee not being acceptable to the Syndicate in toto. The said reasoning cannot apply to a case where a panel is given and the Syndicate decides to choose one among the panel. 21. Clause XII is intended to operate only when the decision of the Selection Committee not being acceptable to the Syndicate in toto. The said reasoning cannot apply to a case where a panel is given and the Syndicate decides to choose one among the panel. 21. Point No.(iii): According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in terms of Paragraph 3.3.0 of the U.G.C. Notification relating to minimum qualification for appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, 1998, preference should have been given to the petitioner, as he was already employed with the Institute and that the minimum requirement should not have been insisted upon. To appreciate the said contention, it is necessary to extract the said provision, which is as follows: "3.3.0. The minimum requirements of a good academic record, 55% of the marks at the master's level and qualifying in the National Eligibility Test, or an accredited test, shall remain for the appointment of Lecturers. It would be optional for the University to exempt Ph.D. holders from NET or to require NET, in their case, either as a desirable or essential qualification for appointment as Lecturers in the University Departments and Colleges. The minimum requirement of 55% should not be insisted upon for Professors, Readers, Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Librarians, Deputy librarians, Directors of Physical Education, Deputy Directors of Physical Education for the existing incumbents who are already in the University system. However, these marks should be insisted upon for those entering the system from outside and those at the entry point of Lecturers, Assistant Registrars, Assistant Librarians, Assistant Director of Physical Education. " 22. I am unable to sustain the said contention also. The first sentence of the extract relates to a general statement and fixing 55% as the qualification for appointment as Lecturers. The second sentence relates to the case of Ph.D. holders being exempted to acquire NET qualification. The third sentence relates to the appointment of Professors, Readers, Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Librarians, etc., and does not relate to the appointment of Lecturers. The last sentence also does not apply to the petitioner and in terms of the said requirement, there shall be no relaxation in the case of the persons being appointed from outside. Therefore, I am unable to sustain the contention that in the case of the petitioner, the minimum requirement of 55% cannot be insisted for appointment as Lecturer. The last sentence also does not apply to the petitioner and in terms of the said requirement, there shall be no relaxation in the case of the persons being appointed from outside. Therefore, I am unable to sustain the contention that in the case of the petitioner, the minimum requirement of 55% cannot be insisted for appointment as Lecturer. With the result, I am unable to sustain any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. W.P.M.P. Nos.20585 and 26907 of 1995 and 19437 and 19438 of 1996 are closed.