Judgment :- 1. The petitioner passed B.Sc., in Food Science and Nutrition & Bio-chemistry in Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women in 1st class in April 1994. Later, she passed M.Sc., in Food Science and Nutrition in the same Institute in 1st class in 1996. She also passed M.Phil in Food Science and Nutrition in the same Institute in 1st class in October 2003. She also passed National Eligibility Test conducted by the Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board in the year December 1998. Further, she also passed UGC-NET Examination for eligibility for Lectureship in the subject "Home Science" held on 31.12.2005. 2. The petitioner states that she was working as a Lecturer in Annai Meenakshi College of Nursing, teaching Home Science to the B.Sc., Nursing Students from the year December 1996 to February 2005. Subsequently, she joined as a Lecturer in RVS Nursing College on 8th February 2005 and she has been working there till date. 3. Direct Recruitment for Lectureship in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for Government Arts and Science Colleges took place during the year 2008 – 2009, in which 4 vacancies were sought to be filled in the subject Home Science. The petitioner applied for the same and she was called for certificate verification on 07.03.2009. She obtained 26 out of 29 marks. She was also called to attend an interview on 08.06.2009. Totally, 20 candidates were called for certificate verification and interview. 4. According to petitioner, she is the first among the M.B.C. Candidates and third among the over all candidates. However, the petitioner is not selected, on the ground "not relevant subject". The aforesaid information was relating to her non selection was taken from internet on 15.07.2009. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the publication made in the internet dated 15.07.2009 in so far as the petitioner is concerned and for a direction to the respondents to appoint her as Lecturer in Home Science. 6. Notice of motion was ordered on 06.08.2009. 7. Heard Mr.K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 8. The learned Government Advocate made her submissions based on instructions. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has categorically pleaded in the affidavit that none of the colleges and Universities in Tamil Nadu conduct Post Graduate Course in Home Science. Heard Mr.K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 8. The learned Government Advocate made her submissions based on instructions. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has categorically pleaded in the affidavit that none of the colleges and Universities in Tamil Nadu conduct Post Graduate Course in Home Science. The petitioner passed the NET Examination conducted by the UGC in Home Science, during the year 2005. It is also submitted that in 2007-2008 batch recruitment, the persons possessing Post Graduation in Food and Nutrition, Food Science Management and Family Resource Management were selected. It is also submitted that even in the year 2009 batch for which the petitioner is contending for appointment, one Ms.Vijaya Priya was selected for the post of Lecturer in Home Science while she possesses M.Sc., Degree in Home Resource Management. It is also submitted that Madras University gave an opinion dated, 12.08.2009, based on the opinion offered by the Chairperson, Board of Studies in Human Science (Prof & Head, Dept. of Home Science) of the Madras University that the M.Sc., & M.Phil., degrees in Food Science and Nutrition awarded to her through Avinashilingam Institute of Home Science and Higher Education for Women (Deemed University) can be considered as equivalent to M.Sc., and M.Phil., degrees in Home Science of the Madras University. Hence, there is no reason to deny her selection, if she is otherwise qualified. 10. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that the equivalence of degrees cannot be decided by this Court. According to the learned Government Advocate, whenever such a dispute arises, the same should be sent to the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education constituted under Act 40 of 1992 for Expert opinion. The learned Government Advocate also relies on a decision of this Court dated 21.01.2010 in W.P.No.12810 of 2009 in this regard, wherein, this Court passed an interim order directing the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education to give its opinion as to whether Industrial Chemistry is equivalent to Chemistry. It is also stated that thereafter the said Expert body gave opinion that Industrial Chemistry is equivalent to Chemistry. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent-TRB to consider the petitioner therein for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. It is also stated that thereafter the said Expert body gave opinion that Industrial Chemistry is equivalent to Chemistry. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent-TRB to consider the petitioner therein for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. The learned Government Advocate further submits that the issue should be referred to the Expert Body for its opinion as to whether M.Sc., Home Science is equivalent to M.Sc., Food Science and Nutrition. 11. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 12. In this case, the petitioner has categorically pleaded that none of the colleges and Universities in Tamil Nadu offer Post Graduation Course in Home Science, which is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate. Furthermore, the petitioner passed the NET Examination conducted by the UGC in the subject, Home Science, during the year 2005. Moreover, Lecturers in the subject of Home Science were appointed during 2007 recruitment, 2008 recruitment and 2009 recruitment of the persons who possesses M.Sc., degree in Food and Nutrition, Food Science Management and Family Resource Management. The details of persons recruited with those M.Sc., degrees were furnished by the petitioner in the affidavit and the same is not in dispute. Furthermore, the University of Madras gave an opinion dated, 12.08.2009, which is extracted hereunder:- "As per the opinion offered by the Chairperson, Board of Studies in Human Science (Prof & Head, Dept. of Home Science) of this University, she is informed that the M.Sc., & M.Phil degrees in Food Science and Nutrition awarded to her through Avinashilingam Institute of Home Science and Higher education for women (Deemed University) can be considered as equivalent to M.Sc., and M.Phil degrees in Home Science of this University provided she should have completed the course under 10+2+3+2+1 (or) 11+2+3+2+1 pattern of study and also subject to the condition that the candidate should have secured a minimum of 50% of marks in each papers individually in M.Sc., & M.Phil., degree examinations for the purpose of appointment as lecturer through Teachers Recruitment Board." The only argument of the learned Government Advocate is that whenever the equivalence of degrees has to be decided, the same should be referred to the concerned Expert body for its opinion. She also relied on the decision of this Court dated 21.01.2010 in W.P.No.12810 of 2009. She also relied on the decision of this Court dated 21.01.2010 in W.P.No.12810 of 2009. In that case, while Madras University opined that Industrial Chemistry is not equivalent to Chemistry, Bharathidasan University and Azhagappa University opined that Industrial Chemistry awarded by them are equivalent to Chemistry. In those circumstances, this Court thought it fit to refer the matter to an Expert body to find out the equivalence. But, in this case, there are overwhelming materials to establish that respondent-Board appointed the persons with M.Sc., degree in Food and Nutrition, Food Science Management and Family Resource Management for the post of Lecturer in Home Science during 2007, 2008 and 2009 recruitment. The details of persons recruited are given by the petitioner in the additional affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and the same are extracted here-under:- "2007 Batch TRB Recruitment:- Name of the College Name of the candidates Subject in M.Sc. degree Queen Marys Govt. Arts and Science Ms.Prema Family Resource Management Bargur Govt. Arts and Science Ms.Sujatha Food & Nutrition Bargur Govt. Arts and Science Ms.Revathi Food Science Management Quaidha Millath Govt. Arts and Science Prabavathi Food Service Management 2008 Batch-Backlog-TRB Recruitment:- Name of the College Name of the candidates Subject in M.Sc. degree Bargur Govt. Arts and Science Ms.Sujatha Family Resource Management Quaidha Millath Govt. Arts and Science Ms.Kalpana Ms.Sivakami Family Resource Management Vilokkottai Ms.Pavithra Food Science Management 2009 Batch-TRB Recruitment in which the petitioners appointment is rejected:- Name of the College Name of the candidates Subject in M.Sc. degree Queen Marys Govt Arts and Science Ms.Vijaya Priya Home Resource Management 13. In these circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed and the writ petition is entitled to succeed. However, there cannot be a direction to appoint the petitioner as a Lecturer in the Department of Home Science straight away. It is made clear that she is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Home Science. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Home Science for the recruitment in the year 2008-2009 and to select her, if she is otherwise entitled to the same. 14. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.