Judgment :- The petitioner has projected this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus in directing the respondents to appoint him as B.T. Assistant (History). 2. The petitioner applied to the First respondent/Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai for appointment/post in pursuance of the applications called for by the first respondent from qualified persons in December, 2005. The examination was conducted on 8.1.2006 and results were published on 12.1.2006 and the petitioner secured 75 marks out of 150. 3. According to the petitioner, he passed old pattern SSLC in the year 1971 and Pre University course in 1972. He acquired B.A. degree qualification in Tourism in the year 1977 from Annamalai University. He could not get any employment and joined as Noon Meal Organizer in 1987 and working in Panchayat Union Middle School, Pakkampadi village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. He appeared for M.A. (History) and secured a degree from Annamalai University during the year 1990. He also obtained a B.Ed. degree from Annamalai University in the year 1993 in History. 4. To provide an opportunity to the Noon Meal Organisers, the Government passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.157, School Education Department dated 12.8.2005 to the Noon Meal Organizers to get a Teacher post for those who possessed B.Ed./M.Ed. Degree, as one time measure. The petitioner secured 75 marks out of 150. He was required to appear for certificate verification and his Certificates were verified on 24.1.2006. In History subject alone, 145 candidates were selected including the petitioner. 5. A doubt was entertained as to whether B.A. (Tourism) degree possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to B.A. (History) degree. According to the petitioner, he possessed M.A. (History) degree. Since the first respondent wanted equivalent Certificate, the petitioner obtained the said Certificate from Annamalai University on 3.2.2006 and submitted the same to the first respondent on 6.2.2006. The first respondent directed the petitioner to produce two copies of syllabus in Tourism subject and accordingly, he furnished the same on 24.4.2006. He made a representation to the first respondent on 29.5.2006. But, no posting order has been issued. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he possessed Master degree in History and there is no impediment to consider his case for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant. Also that, he possessed B.Ed. degree and that he produced a Certificate of equivalent from Annamalai University. But, no posting order has been issued. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he possessed Master degree in History and there is no impediment to consider his case for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant. Also that, he possessed B.Ed. degree and that he produced a Certificate of equivalent from Annamalai University. Indeed, according to the petitioner, even for the appointment to the post of History, total mark in respect of B.A. (History) graduate is only 40 marks in History subject and the other 40 marks are given to Geography and 20 marks to Constitution, whereas in the Tourism subject, students are studying History subject covering all the hundred marks. 7. The petitioner relies heavily on the Certificate dated 27.1.2006 issued by the Professor and Head, Department of History to the effect that B.A. Tourism of Annamalai University in the department of History offered earlier have been equivalent to B.A. History, because the Syllabi has been history oriented one. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner produced an order dated 8.2.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. No.12810 of 2009 between one K. Sankar and Teachers Recruitment Board, represented by its Chairman, Chennai – 6 and another wherein it is observed here under:- "14. The learned Government Advocate stated that by that opinion alone, the petitioner cannot be granted the appointment to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. This Court is not inclined to pass any positive direction to appoint the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. The present exercise was undertaken by this Court only because the Court lacked power to adjudicate on an academic matter. Yet at the same time, the respondent must apply their mind before deciding equivalence or rejecting the equivalence of any two degrees. Since there were rival stand between the two Universities, the only course open to this Court was to call for an opinion from a statutorily appointed body. By this exercise, all that the petitioner had achieved was that the Industrial Chemistry for which he has a Post Graduate degree must be considered to be equivalent to M.Sc. Chemistry so as to be eligible to teach Chemistry in colleges as a Lecturer under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education service. 15. By this exercise, all that the petitioner had achieved was that the Industrial Chemistry for which he has a Post Graduate degree must be considered to be equivalent to M.Sc. Chemistry so as to be eligible to teach Chemistry in colleges as a Lecturer under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education service. 15. In the light of the above, the first respondent is directed to interview the petitioner and thereafter, publish his results in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of this Court. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." Admittedly, a Court of law is not an expert in academic field/exercise. 9. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that B.A. (Tourism) degree of Annamalai University is not equivalent to B.A. (History) degree. Since the petitioner does not possess B.A. (History) qualification and also because of the fact that B.A. (Tourism) degree cannot be equated with that of B.A. (History) degree, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that he is not entitled to the relief of writ of mandamus praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents in appointing him as B.T. Assistant (History). Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.