Judgment Heard both sides. 2. The petitioners were applicants to the post of Lecturer for Zoology, for which Applications were called for by the third respondent. The petitioners have studied Wild Life (Biology), but they have applied for Lecturer in Zoology. Since the respondents were not willing to consider M.Sc Wild Life (Biology) as equvilant to that of M.Sc. Zoology degree, they have come forward to file the present Writ Petitions. .3. In the Writ Petitions, they have sought for quashing the guidelines issued by the third respondent Teacher Recruitment Board who has to carry out the preliminary work regarding verification of certificates of candidates applied for Lecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges coming under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Service .and to quash it to the extent that M.Sc. Wild Life (Botony) degree is not made eligible or equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology) degree, as per Enclosure-I of Annexure-I and for directing the respondents to consider the degrees obtained by the petitioners as equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology) degree and consequently award appropriate marks to the petitioners in the curriculum vitae produced by the petitioners. 4. In the annexure to the guidelines issued for the authorities who are doing certificate verification, the Teachers Recruitment Board has given the list of subjects accepted as equivalent by the University of Madras. In respect of the Wild Life (Biiology), it was stated that those candidates having such degrees are not eligible to apply for the post of Zoology Lecturer. 5. The grievance of the petitioners were that such a direction cannot be given on the basis of the opinion tendered by the University of Madras, since the petitioners have obtained such degrees from the Bharathidasan University and the Bharathidasan University by a letter dated 13. 2009 had stated that M.Sc. Wild Life (Biology ) from Bharathidasan University shall be considered on par with M.Sc. (zoology) degree for employment purpose. Therefore, the petitioners have sent a representation to the respondents requesting them to consider their degree as equivalent to Zoology and since no reply was forthcoming, they have come forward to file the present Writ Petitions. Pending the Writ Petitions, this Court directed the third respondent Teacher Recruitment Board to reserve three post of Lecturers in Zoology. 6. Therefore, the petitioners have sent a representation to the respondents requesting them to consider their degree as equivalent to Zoology and since no reply was forthcoming, they have come forward to file the present Writ Petitions. Pending the Writ Petitions, this Court directed the third respondent Teacher Recruitment Board to reserve three post of Lecturers in Zoology. 6. When the matter came up before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents 1 to 3 cannot simply go by the advise given by the fourth respondent as they have vested interest in not equivalent status. They have produced from their University which is established by an Act of Legislature a certificate of equivalance. Since the respondents have not considered their representations, they have come forward to file present Writ Petitions. This Court having found that it is purely an academic matter and cannot decide such issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, decided to invite an expert opinion from the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education constituted by Tamil Nadu Act 40/92 (herein after called as the TANSCHE). .7. This Court by an interim order dated 111. 2009, directed the TANSCHE to call for a .meeting of the Board of Chairmans of the Department Zoology of University of Madras and the Bharathidasan University (Wild Life Bilolgy). After having a consultation with them and after going through the entire records including the certificates given by both the Universities, sent a report to this Court as to whether the M.Sc. Degree in Wild Life (Biology) conferred by the Bharathidasan University can be treated as equivalent subject so as to hold the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the various Arts and Science College in Tamil Nadu. 8. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the Member Secretary of the TANSCHE with a covering letter dated 012. 2009 communicated the opinion of the meeting convened by the Council. In that opinion, they have stated that after experts consultation they have resolved that M.Sc. Wild Life (Biology) conferred by the Bharathidasan University is not the equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology) to teach Zoology in Colleges. 2009 communicated the opinion of the meeting convened by the Council. In that opinion, they have stated that after experts consultation they have resolved that M.Sc. Wild Life (Biology) conferred by the Bharathidasan University is not the equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology) to teach Zoology in Colleges. In doing so, it is seen from the proceedings that the TANSCHE had taken the opinions of the Chairman of Boards of University of Madras, Bharathidasan University as well as the Heads of Post Graduate Departments of Zoology in Presidency College and Queen Marys College in Chennai. Excepting the Bharathidasan University, other experts have opined that the syllabus prescribed for M.Sc Wild Life (bilogy) covers approximately 40 to 42% of the syllabus in M.Sc. (Zoology). 9. A copy of the Report was given to the petitioners. They took time and filed their objection Statement to the Report. Though this Court is of the opinion that such an objection cannot be entertained by this Court, yet since they have made written pleadings, this Court is constrained to deal with those objections. 10. The contention of the petitioners was that the so called subject experts meeting convened by the TANSCHE are biased because the Queen Marys College and the Presidency Colleges are also affiliated to Madras University and therefore, they will not be in a position to give any objective assessment. Hence, the Report should be rejected. It is also stated that the basis and the materials under which such decisions were arrived at are also not disclosed. This Court is unable to accept the said contention raised by the petitioners. .11. On notice from this Court, the Chairman of the Teachers Recruitment Board had communicated by a letter dated 24. 2009 stating that they are only recruiting authority and the question of equivalence cannot be determined by them. The recruitments have been done only on the basis of the Governments Policy and the existing Rules of the Government. He had also fairly stated that the guidelines for certification verification was based upon a letter sent by the fourth respondent University. 12. In any event, the attack by the petitioners against the opinion of the TANSCHE, the Body constituted by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1992 is not only unwarranted, but also unacceptable. He had also fairly stated that the guidelines for certification verification was based upon a letter sent by the fourth respondent University. 12. In any event, the attack by the petitioners against the opinion of the TANSCHE, the Body constituted by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1992 is not only unwarranted, but also unacceptable. The said Council is comprised of the representatives of all Universities and it is also statutorily empowered to advise the Government regarding such issues. It is only with a view to expedite the resolving of the grievance of the petitioners, this Court thought it fit to call for a Report from the TANSCHE. While doing so, this Court also took note of the fact that Section 10(2) of the Act provides for the authority of the Council to advise the Government in this regard. Having invited an opinion and only because the opinion is not palatable to the petitioners, does not mean that the opinion is liable to be rejected by this Court. The allegation that the Council is biased or one-sided is not borne out by any records. Further, the Presidency College and the Queen Marys Colleges are autonomous Colleges and they are not the mouthpiece of the Madras University. 13. In any event, once a Report is called and if the opinions are communicated by the counsel as directed by this Court, this Court is not in a position to reject the said Report. The Supreme Court vide its Judgment reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 1904 in the case of Prof.K.Rajayyam vs Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi and another has held as follows:- "14. The Courts are not experts in deciding academic matters and it is not for them to decide as to what course should be taught in universities and what should be their curriculum. This caution was sounded in University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 wherein GAJENDRAGAKAR, J (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench held that 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 the Courts generally can be. 15. 15. This principle was reiterated in J.P.Kulshreshtha (Dr.) v. Chancellor, Allahabad University AIR 1980 SC 2141 : (1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980-II-LLJ-175 wherein it was held as under at p.180 of LLJ: "18........While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that Courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But university organs, for that matter any authority in our system, are bound by the rule of law and cannot be law unto themselves. If the Chancellor or any other authority lesser in level decides an academic matter or an educational question, the Court keeps its hands off; but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the Court out.". 16. Both these decisions were quoted with approval in a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in P.M.Bhargava and Others v University Grants Commission and Another (2004) 6 SCC 661 ". 14. In the light of the same all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.