Judgment : Heard Mr.S.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the respondent university. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondent University to conduct an interview afresh for the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Economics) after giving opportunity to the petitioner to attend the interview. 3. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he had studied B.Sc. (Agriculture) in the respondent university. He also completed M.Sc. in Dairy Economics as well as Ph.D. in the same subject from the National Dairy Research Institute at Karnal in Haryana State. The petitioner at present is working as a Research Officer in the National Institute of Agricultural Marketing. 4. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Economics) pursuant to an advertisement dated 07.07.2008. Along with the petitioner several other persons have also applied. Pending the selection, another notification dated 10.09.2008 was issued by the respondent university in respect of the very same post. In that notification it was stated that the persons who have already applied need not apply for the second time. Hence, the petitioner did not apply afresh for the second time. 5. It later transpires that an Association of SC/ST employees in the University filed a Writ Petition before this Court challenging the said notification. Subsequently, the notification was upheld by this Court. However, the matter was taken before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1282 of 2009. In that Writ Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court directed the consideration of all the pending applications including proceeding with the interview, but the results should be withheld pending final orders by this Court. 6. Thereafter, the University once again issued a fresh notification on 02.09.2009. The petitioner also applied for the very same post with the very same qualification. The petitioner was neither a party to the earlier Writ Proceedings, nor he has come forward to challenge the authority under which the fresh notification has been issued. The only grievance of the petitioner was that while several other persons have been given interview letters, the petitioner has not been given any such notice, therefore he had come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 7. The Writ Petition came up on 28.10.2009 and notice was directed to be issued to the University. The only grievance of the petitioner was that while several other persons have been given interview letters, the petitioner has not been given any such notice, therefore he had come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 7. The Writ Petition came up on 28.10.2009 and notice was directed to be issued to the University. Accordingly, on 30.10.2009, Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the respondent university took notice and sought time for filing the counter. Thereafter a counter affidavit dated 06.12.2009 was filed by the Registrar of the University. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Economics) requires a Master Degree in Agriculture, and no other subject can be considered. Insofar as the petitioner has got a Masters Degree in Dairy Economics, his application cannot be considered. It is also stated that the petitioners application has been rejected as he did not have minimum eligibility. 8. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that any qualification will have to be recognised only by governing bodies such as Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and similar bodies. Since the petitioner had acquired the National Eligibility Test (NET) in the subject on Agricultural Economics, he is eligible to be considered for the post. This Court is unable to agree with the said submission. 9. As can be seen from the notification dated 02.09.2009, the Masters Degree in the relevant subject with a minimum of 55% marks is required for the post. The post for which the petitioner had applied was only the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Economics). Therefore, this Court cannot presume that the Masters Degree in Dairy Economics is equivalent to a Masters Degree in Agricultural Economics, which subject is required to hold the said post. Normally, this Court cannot interdict a decision making process in an academic matter. Largely academic matters will have to be determined only by academic bodies such as the respondent university. In the present case, the petitioner except to assert that he had passed the NET (National Eligibility Test) in the said subject, was not able to show that Dairy Economics is equivalent to Agricultural Economics and it is a relevant subject comparable to Agricultural Economics. In "J.P.Kulshrestha ..vs.. In the present case, the petitioner except to assert that he had passed the NET (National Eligibility Test) in the said subject, was not able to show that Dairy Economics is equivalent to Agricultural Economics and it is a relevant subject comparable to Agricultural Economics. In "J.P.Kulshrestha ..vs.. Chancellor, Allahabad University" reported in " 1980 (3) SCC 418 " at paragraph 17 has held that:- "17.Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. 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, is bound by the rule of law and cannot be a law unto itself. 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. In Govinda Rao case Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) struck the right note : "What the High Court should have considered is whether the appointment made by Chancellor had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard to the opinions expressed by the Board and its recommendations on which the Chancellor has acted. (emphasis added) The later decisions cited before us broadly conform to the rule of caution sounded in Govinda Rao. But to respect an authority is not to worship it unquestioningly since the bhakthi cult is inept in the critical field of law. In short, while dealing with legal affairs which have an impact on academic bodies, the views of educational experts are entitled to great consideration but not to exclusive wisdom. Moreover, the present case is so simple that profound doctrines about academic autonomy have no place here. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondent university and that the petitioners claim was considered and that his application was rejected as not eligible, this Court is not inclined to order the relief claimed by the petitioner. 10. Moreover, the present case is so simple that profound doctrines about academic autonomy have no place here. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondent university and that the petitioners claim was considered and that his application was rejected as not eligible, this Court is not inclined to order the relief claimed by the petitioner. 10. Even otherwise, the respondent university having been established by the Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 1971 specifically given the Chancellor of University vide powers to examine grievances made by any individual. Section 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, 1971, reads as follows:- "9 (4).The Chancellor may of his own motion or on application call for and examine the record of any officer or authority of the University in respect of any proceeding to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein; and, if, any case, it appears to the Chancellor that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly; Provided that every application to the Chancellor for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within three months from the date on which the proceeding, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant. Provided further that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation." 11. If the petitioner is so aggrieved, he can always make an application to the Chancellor of the University, who is vested with official power, can correct any error committed by the authorities of the University. With this observation, this Court cannot grant the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.