Order The University published an advertisement, namely, Advertisement NO.2 of 2009 in the daily newspapers on 3.3.2009 inviting applications for appointment of Lecturers in P.G. Departments and constituent colleges of the V.K.S. University, Ara under different subjects. In Political Science total vacancies required to be filled up was 28 with the break-up of reserved posts as appearing from Annexure2. The University also provided instructions to the candidates applying for consideration for appointment in response to the advertisement, a copy whereof is Annexure-3 with the writ application. In the eligibility column for Lecturers the qualification laid down was as follows: (i) The candidate should have possessed a good academic record with at least 55% (50% for the candidates belonging to SC/ST or those who passed their Master's Degree prior to 19.9.1991 and hold a Ph.D. degree) or an equivalent grade of 'B' in the 7 points scale with letter grades 0, A, B, C, D, E and F at Master's degree level in the relevant subjects from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. (ii) Candidates should have: qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) for Lecturers conducted by the UGC/ CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. However, the candidates having M.PhiI./Ph.D. degree in concerned subject are exempted from NET.” 2. Petitioner claimed to have the qualification as prescribed. Hence, he applied for selection for appointment as Lecturer in Political Science in response to the advertisement. His application was considered, but the respondents did not find him eligible for calling for interview as he did not had Master's Degree in Political Science. However, petitioner was not informed about the same. Hence, he sent an application to the University under R.T.1. Act through his learned counsel. The reply received by the petitioner is Annexure-5 with the writ application. In the reply, it was mentioned that the candidates having Post-Graduate degree in Public Administration were not eligible for consideration for appointment as Lecturers in Political Science. This has given a cause of action to the petitioner to move this Court. 3. Act through his learned counsel. The reply received by the petitioner is Annexure-5 with the writ application. In the reply, it was mentioned that the candidates having Post-Graduate degree in Public Administration were not eligible for consideration for appointment as Lecturers in Political Science. This has given a cause of action to the petitioner to move this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instructions to the candidates in column one of eligibility it was specifically mentioned that certain percentage of marks in Master's Degree in the relevant subjects from any Indian University or any equivalent degree from a Foreign University would be treated as acceptable qualification for eligibility of a candidate for consideration of his case for appointment. Learned counsel submits that Public Administration is one of the relevant subjects of Political Science. Hence petitioner had the Master's Degree in one of the relevant subjects and especiality of Political Science and thus had the eligibility for consideration of his case for appointment as Lecturer in Political Science. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008(4) PLJR 168 (SC), a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 also with the writ application. 4. It appears that in the said case before the Apex Court the same issue arose and a clarification furnished by the . UGC to the University in the matter was noticed by the Apex Court in the following manner:- "It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought for from, the UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Master's Degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa, the UGC wrote a letter dated 5.3.1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subject of Political Science and Public Administration are inter-changeable and inter-related, and a candidate who possesses Master's Degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. Thus, this is the view of the UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view." 5. From the judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that the advertisement ,published by the University in the case had also required a candidate to have Post-Graduate degree 'in relevant subjects'. From the judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that the advertisement ,published by the University in the case had also required a candidate to have Post-Graduate degree 'in relevant subjects'. Therefore, The Apex Court, in the light of the opinion of the UGC and other materials, held that the expression 'relevant subject' included Public Administration also in respect of appointment of Lecturer in Political Science. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University in this case and it is submitted that the University maintains different department of Political Science and Public Administration. Hence, the same cannot be treated as inter-changeable. It is also submitted that the case before the Apex Court was decided on its own facts and, therefore, the said judgment v ill not be applicable in the case of the present petitioner as in that case the University was maintaining a single department for Political Science and Public Administration. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the materials available on record and the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the distinction pointed out by learned counsel for the University to distinguish the said case decided by the Apex Court is not good enough to hold that the judgment is not an authority for the purposes of the case of the present petitioner. It may be that for its own convenience the University may be arranging for teaching etc. of the two subjects separately. But, merely by maintaining a separate department for Public Administration cannot be a conclusive proof that Public Administration was being treated as completely independent subject and not covered by the broader subject of Political Science. As noticed by the Apex Court in the judgment, the UGC had also clearly opined that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and inter-related and a candidate who possesses Master's Degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. It cannot be disputed that UGC is an expert body to decide the teaching standards and norms including the curricula in the Universities of Country and lay down the eligibility and qualifications for teaching staff in the University. It cannot be disputed that UGC is an expert body to decide the teaching standards and norms including the curricula in the Universities of Country and lay down the eligibility and qualifications for teaching staff in the University. If the UGC has accepted the inter-changeability between Political Science and Public Administration for the purposes of eligibility for appointment of Lecturer, the University cannot be held to have the authority to make a distinction between the same. This may also be noticed that in the case before the Apex Court the advertisement required Post-Graduate degree .in relevant subjects'. The same language has been used by the respondent University in the advertisement in the present case also. Had the University intended to restrict the selection of the candidates for appointment of Lecturer in Political Science for candidates holding Master's Degree in Political Science only it could have indicated the same in the advertisement itself. This has not been done in the advertisement and the University has laid down that 'any Master's degree in relevant subjects' shall be sufficient eligibility for consideration of the case of the applicant for his appointment. 8. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner was wrongly debarred• by the Selection Committee from appearing in the interview and from consideration of his case for appointment as Lecturer in Political Science under the University. 9. This writ application is accordingly allowed. 10. This Court is informed that the interview has not still commenced pursuant to the advertisement. In the circumstances, this Court directs the Selection Committee of the University to invite the petitioner for interview for consideration of his case for appointment as Lecturer in Political Science in terms of the advertisement, if he is otherwise eligible.