Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Connected Writ Appeals are filed against common judgment whereunder the Single Judge set aside the appointment of the appellant in W.A. No.931/2010 as the Labour Officer and directed appointment of the first respondent in that post. The other Writ Appeal is filed by the University challenging the very same judgment. We have heard counsel appearing for all the parties. 2. During hearing, it is submitted that first respondent in W.A. No.931/2010 later got a promotion post which is equivalent to the post to which the appellant in that Writ Appeal is appointed. Ext.P1 issued by the University inviting application for the post of Labour Officer from among employees prescribe the qualification and method of appointment as follows: "As per statutes the appointment to the post of Labour Officer is (1) by promotion from any other posts in the Kerala Agricultural University service (Note - Other things being equal promotion shall be in the order of seniority). (2) by direct recruitment if candidates are not available under item (1) above. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Labour Officer is (1) Graduate of recognized University. (2) A Degree or Diploma in Social Science recognized by the Government of Kerala. Those who are willing to be considered for the post of Labour Officer are directed to submit their biodata in the prescribed proforma appended to this Circular on or before 31.8.08 along with copies of the relevant certificates to prove qualifications, experience etc." While the appellant is a Post-Graduate in Sociology, the contesting respondent is a Post-Graduate in Economics. Admittedly the respondent is senior in service as Section Officer which is a feeder category to the post of Labour Officer. If qualifications are the same, then the contesting respondent is entitled to be appointed to the post to which appellant was appointed by the University vide the impugned order. The question to be considered is whether both are equal in terms of the qualification. The basic qualification required is Graduate of recognised University, which qualification both the contesting parties have. However, under item (2) the further qualification required is a Degree or Diploma in Social Science recognised by Government of Kerala. The question to be considered is whether both are equal in terms of the qualification. The basic qualification required is Graduate of recognised University, which qualification both the contesting parties have. However, under item (2) the further qualification required is a Degree or Diploma in Social Science recognised by Government of Kerala. While the case of the contesting respondent is that under the University norms Economics is also Social Science and so much so, he should be treated as equally qualified with the appellant who is M.A. (Sociology), the appellant's case is that Sociology is essentially Social Science by itself and so much so, he is the only qualified person eligible to be appointed. The reason why the learned Single Judge interfered with the matter is the statement by University in Ext.P11 (produced in W.P.(C) No.29676/2009), wherein it is stated as follows: "In 1986, it was decided not to consider the persons holding Degree/Diploma in Economics & Psychology for the posting of Labour Officer, as these 2 subjects have no involvement for the post of Labour Officer, even though it is included in the broad field of Social Science." The case of the contesting respondent that found acceptance with the learned Single Judge is that the amendment proposed in 1986 by the University was not brought to the statute and so much so, those who hold Degree in Economics and Psychology will be eligible to be considered for the post of Labour Officer. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that since Degree in Economics is not excluded from the prescribed educational qualification, the contesting respondent is equally qualified educationally as the appellant and so much so, he being senior, should have been appointed as against the appellant whom the University preferred. We are unable to accept this proposition because under the scheme provided appointment can be made based on seniority only if other things are equal. In our view, the appellant's educational qualification which is Post-Graduate Degree in Sociology is a superior qualification over the qualification of the contesting respondent which is M.A.Economics for the purpose of the post i.e. Labour Officer to which selection has to be made. Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that Economic is also a subject in Social Science and so much so, the contesting respondent is educationally qualified for the post. Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that Economic is also a subject in Social Science and so much so, the contesting respondent is educationally qualified for the post. He has also stated that the University which awarded the Degree treats Economics also as one of the subjects in Social Science. In our view, there can be no dispute that Economics is part of Social Science because Social Science is a scientific study of human society and social relationship. However, Sociology is a study of the development, structure and functioning of the human society and so much so, it is a more comprehensive study on Social Science than Economics which is only a branch of it. So much so, in our view, consistent with the norms for selection extracted above, the appellant has a superior educational qualification and the appointment just based on seniority does not apply. Therefore, the appellant's selection by the University and appointment under the impugned order is perfectly in order and we uphold the same. 3. Since contesting respondent is also promoted to an equal post, though after some time, he cannot have any serious grievance also against the University in delaying promotion to him who is senior to the appellant. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeals by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and by restoring the order of the University appointing the appellant in W.A. No.931/2010 as Labour Officer in the University.