Judgment : These two Writ Petitions were filed by two individuals seeking to set aside the notification dated 02.09.2009 calling for applications to various posts and for consequential direction to consider the case of the petitioners, for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Engineering pursuant to the earlier notification dated 07.07.2008 and 10.09.2008, in respect of W.P.No.22847 of 2009. In respect of W.P.No.22804 of 2009, the prayer is for excluding fresh candidates, who have applied for the concerned post, pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.09.2009, during the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in the respondent University. 2. Heard Mr.S.J.Jagadev, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions and Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. 3. When these matters came up on 09.11.2009, the learned counsel for the respondent University took notice and had also filed counter affidavits dated 06.12.2009. The respondent University advertised certain posts by a notification dated 07.07.2008 and subsequently, a revised notification dated 10.09.2008 came to be issued by them. 4. At this juncture, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University SC/ST Employees Welfare Association filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.23373 of 2008 challenging the notification on the ground that backlog vacancies in the University were not filled up by the University and the reservation of posts made by them was not in the terms of the communal roster prescribed. When they sought for interim stay of selection process, this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2009 by an order dated 31.08.2009, dismissed the stay application. In the said order, this Court stated that the University was at liberty to proceed with the advertisement and fill up the posts as notified, however, appointments made will subject to the result in the main Writ Petition. 5. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the said Association filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1282 of 2009. The Division Bench by it final order dated 18.09.2009 gave the following direction, which is found in paragraph 6 of the order. 5. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the said Association filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1282 of 2009. The Division Bench by it final order dated 18.09.2009 gave the following direction, which is found in paragraph 6 of the order. "6.In view of the above submissions, we only dispose of this Writ Appeal with a direction that the University is permitted to scrutinise the applications so far received pursuant to the advertisement questioned in the Writ Petition, process the applications, call the candidates for interview and complete the selection process, but the list of candidates so selected by the University shall not be published and the University shall abide by the final orders of this Court in the Writ Petition. No costs. The Writ Petition will be heard by the learned Single Judge, as directed in the impugned order under appeal. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed." (Emphasis added) The grievance of the petitioner was that even while the said order is in force, the University had given a fresh advertisement calling for applications from candidates. Therefore the petitioner in W.P.No.22804 of 2009 (P.Kandasamy) wants the new notification to be quashed as it had contravened the direction issued by the Division Bench. Further plea of the petitioner was that the candidates, who were not qualified at the time of the earlier notification, will also be considered by virtue of the fresh notification and that will jeo-pardise the chances of the petitioners selection. 6. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the respondent University brought to the notice of this Court that consequent to the direction issued by the Division Bench, the main Writ Petition itself was heard by this Court. The matter was finally concluded by a final order dated 23.12.2009. In the said order in Paragraphs 8,9 and 10, it is observed as follows: "8. The learned counsel for the University also submitted that pursuant to the impugned notification, number of SC candidates have applied and they were interviewed in the ratio of 1:6 and for other categories at the ratio of 1 : 11 and the notification was also published in the newspapers viz., in Indian Express and Dinamalar Daily dated 11.09.2008, enabling all the candidates to apply. 9. 9. In the light of the above factual position explaining the number of backlog vacancies as well as the total number of Assistant Professors post falling vacant in the University from 1988, I am satisfied that in the cadre of Assistant Professor Post the University is maintaining communal reservation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved that there is any violation in the reservation policy in any other cadre, it is open to the petitioner association to make representation before the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance with law before filling up the future vacancies. 10. In view of the above factual finding, the other points raised by the respective parties are not decided, particularly with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition as the same is unnecessary on the facts of this case." It was with those observations, the Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the direction of the Division Bench no longer survives. There was no requirement to obtain prior approval from this Court while notifying the appointments. Subsequent to the process of selection and interview, appointments have been issued by the respondent University and there is no illegality or irregularity in the action of the University. 7. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.22804 of 2009, it was stated that the Writ Petitioner had attended the interview on 20.10.2008 and he was not selected pursuant to the interview. It was also further stated that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the earlier Writ Petition. If at all he was aggrieved about unqualified candidates were selected or that the selection process was vitiated, he ought to have impleaded those candidates and challenged their appointments. It is also stated that in the absence of non-impleadment of the selected candidates, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and the said issue has to be decided as a preliminary issue also. 8. Even otherwise, in the present case, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 02.09.2009 in which fresh applications were also called for. The grounds raised in the Writ Petition are arose out of W.P.No.23373 of 2008. 8. Even otherwise, in the present case, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 02.09.2009 in which fresh applications were also called for. The grounds raised in the Writ Petition are arose out of W.P.No.23373 of 2008. When that Writ Petition itself was dismissed by this Court, there is no substance in continuing the present Writ Petition, in the absence of any independent challenge to the notification dated 02.09.2009 and in view of the fact that the selection process was completed and candidates have been appointed, there is no question of entertaining the Writ Petition. Further there is no illegality in the University calling for fresh applications as earlier vacancies could not be filled up by virtue of the earlier Court proceedings and when there was no considerable delay in the matter of selection and appointment. Hence, W.P.No.22804 of 2009 cannot be entertained by this Court and it stands dismissed. 9. In W.P.No.22847 of 2009 (Dr.E.Natarajan), apart from the grounds urged in the other Writ Petition, it was also stated that the petitioner had applied for the Assistant Professor (Agricultural Engineering), has the requisite qualification for applying for the post. Therefore they ought to have considered his candidate as one belonging to the reserved category (MBC community). 10. In response to this allegation, in the counter affidavit dated 06.12.2009, the respondent University has stated that the petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition W.P.No.21608 of 2009 for the very same relief and subsequently withdrew it after making an endorsement. It is also stated that the petitioner, by a telegraphic notice dated 16.10.2009, was informed that he did not hold necessary qualification for being considered for the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Engineering), while the petitioner has only a Post Graduate degree in Water Science and Technology. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner took pains to explain that the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) is a premier Institution in the field of Education in Agriculture and it conducts Post Graduate programmes. The petitioner got a Post Graduate Degree from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute. For applying to the Post Graduate Degree in Water Science and Technology, degree holders in B.Sc. (Agriculture), B.Sc., (Agricultural Economics) , B.Tech., B.E., are also eligible to apply. Therefore the subject Water Science and Technology is a related subject to Agricultural Engineering. The petitioner got a Post Graduate Degree from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute. For applying to the Post Graduate Degree in Water Science and Technology, degree holders in B.Sc. (Agriculture), B.Sc., (Agricultural Economics) , B.Tech., B.E., are also eligible to apply. Therefore the subject Water Science and Technology is a related subject to Agricultural Engineering. He further submitted for doing Ph.D., Degree programme in Agricultural Engineering, Post-Graduate Degree in Water Science and Technology is also considered as eligible. Therefore the Court must presume that Post-Graduate Degree in Water Science and Technology is equivalent to a Post-Graduate Degree in Agricultural Engineering. This Court is unable to agree with such an approach. First of all for the post of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Engineering, what was required was prescribed already in the prospectus. It requires M.Sc. in Agricultural Engineering or M.Sc. in Agriculture. That merely because Post Graduate holders in Water Science and Technology are also eligible to apply for Ph.D programme or that B.Sc., Agricultural Engineering graduates are also eligible to apply for a Post Graduate Degree in Water Science and Technology will not ipso-facto not lead to a conclusion that M.Sc., Water Science and Technology is also equivalent to a M.Sc. Agricultural Engineering. 12. Insofar as the University had advertised for the said post and called for applications, this Court cannot presume that all other degrees in relevant subjects or in allied subjects are automatically equivalent to M.Sc., degree in Agricultural Engineering. Such issue can be decided only by the University and not by this Court. This Court cannot interdict the decision making process in an academic matter. Largely academic matter will have to be determined only by academic bodies such as the respondent University and not by this Court under its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In any event if the petitioner was so aggrieved by his non-selection or rejection of his application, he can always make an application to the Chancellor of the University. 13. In any event if the petitioner was so aggrieved by his non-selection or rejection of his application, he can always make an application to the Chancellor of the University. 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." There is no reason as to why the petitioners have not avail at the statutory remedy provided under the statutes and had rushed to this Court. 14. Hence, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.