JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, CJ. The appellant in this writ appeal had filed Writ Petition No. 7748 of 2007 seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1t respondent-University to included the subject Statistics in the eligible optionals as per Rule (3) of the Government Order dated 28.02.2006 framed under the Karnataka Education Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees Act) 1984 and also to announce his result and for a further direction to the 2nd respondent-Engineering College to regularize his admission and announce his result with permission to take up the examination by considering statistics as an eligible optional for the next academic year. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that statistics has to be treated as an optional subject along the with Chemistry, Bio-technology, Computer Science, Biology and Electronics and take the marks obtained by the appellant in statistics for the purpose of calculating the aggregate marks for the purpose of admission to the engineering course. He contends that non-inclusion of statistics from the list of optional subjects for the purpose of Rule 3 is absolutely arbitrary and has no nexus with the object to be achieved by Rule 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent-University in the objections filed before the learned Single Judge has contended that the case of the appellant cannot be taken into consideration as• he has scored only 42 per cent marks which is less than the marks prescribed for eligibility and since Statistics is not one of the subjects prescribed and the University has adopted the resolution passed by the State Government treating only Chemistry, Bio-technology, Computer Science, Biology and Electronics as optional subjects and the aggregate marks scored should be 45 per cent to be eligible for an engineering seat. Learned Counsel for the respondent-University contends that this being a policy decision, the Court cannot interfere with such a policy decision. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents and held by the learned Single Judge, Courts cannot interfere in a matter of policy decision.The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Lata Arun reported in (2002) 6 SCC 252 has held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. Lata Arun reported in (2002) 6 SCC 252 has held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for Courts to decided whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority. It is for the University to frame rules Fixing the criteria for admission to certain courses and not for this Court to say which subject should be treated as an optional subject and which should be treated as compulsory subject. It is for the academicians to decide matters pertaining to education and not for this Court to decide matters concerning academics. Our view is also fortified by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court wherin it has been held that the Courts should be slow to interfere in academic selections made objectively by experts after following the prescribed procedure in the case of Osmania University Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan, (1997) 3 SEC 124. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and therefore, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.