Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order dated 111. 2008 passed by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner sent a letter dated 28. 2008 stating that she was working as a Headmistress of Suryodaya Primary School, Gudiyatham. She had studied B.Lit., M.A., M.Phil., in Tamil from the Annamalai University under the Distance Education Programme. She has got B.Ed. Degree from the Bharathia Shiksha Parishad at Uttar Pradesh (Lucknow). Therefore, she wanted the said Certificate to be recognised as equivalent to B.Ed., Degree by the Tamil Nadu Government. The petitioners letter given to the Hon’ble Minister for Higher Education Department was forwarded for proper decision by the 3rd respondent University. It is pursuant to the said representation, the University had passed the impugned order stating that the Degree awarded by Bharathia Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh was not recognised by the University and therefore, it cannot be evaluated as equivalent to B.Ed.degree awarded by the State Government. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her request to evaluate the degree was considered without following the orders of the Government and in passing the order, principles of natural justice has been violated. 4. The petitioners reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.62, School Education Department dated 15. 2002 is misconceived as it related to evaluating the Certificate given by the Teacher Training Institute, which are admittedly not the degrees granted by Universities. 5. With reference to the grant of Certificate by any College or University, the power to recognise the same as equivalent to the University Certificate is based upon the criteria whether the institution granting such certificate was recognised by the University Grants Commission and whether the said University or College affiliated to such University, and that particular University, which is in turn recognised by the University Grants Commission. 6. In the absence of the petitioner asserting that the 4th respondent institution or a College affiliated to recognised University or University which is deemed to be an University under section 3 of the University Act, it is not for this Court to find fault with the stand taken by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is unable to state whether the 4th respondent is an affiliated College or University under section 3 of the U.G.C Act. The petitioner is unable to state whether the 4th respondent is an affiliated College or University under section 3 of the U.G.C Act. Under the circumstances, the decision to recognise a particular degree as equivalent to B.Ed degree is to be left with the authorisation of the educationists. It is not for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to take up the task of evaluation that a particular Degree is equivalent to that of the degree obtained by the petitioner. 7. It must be stated that the right to confer a degree by any Institution arises in terms of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and such a power can be exercised by a University established or incorporated under the Central Act or a Provincial Act or a State Act or an Institution, which is deemed to be a University under section 3 or any other Institution, which is specially empowered by an Act of Parliament for conferring the said degrees. Section 22(2) of the UGC Act imposes injunction against any person to confer or grant or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant degrees. Under section 23 of the UGC Act, no institution, whether a corporate body or not other than a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a provincial Act or a State Act shall be entitled to have the word "University" associated with the University. 8. Therefore, unless the petitioner comes only with the plea that the Degree obtained from the 4th respondent Institution has no bar by section 22 of the UGC Act, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Even if a body is recognised by the University Grants Commission, whether a particular degree is equivalent to the degree prescribed under the statutory rule has to be decided only by the appointing authority. 9. Even in one such case, the Supreme Court has recognised that unless the degree is recognised by the Univeristy Grants Commission, it cannot be pressed into service only because the degree itself is granted by an University. This question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University rep.by its Registrar vs. Secretary to the Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 . 10. This question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University rep.by its Registrar vs. Secretary to the Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 . 10. Under the above circumstances, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.