Judgment :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, to consider her appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of law (Intellectual Property Rights), by getting clarification from the second respondent University Grants Commission (for short UGC) as to the LLM Degree course undergone by her. 2. When the writ petition came up on 14.08.2012, this court directed notice to be served on the Standing Counsel for the respondents and an interim injunction was granted restraining the University from making any appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of Law (Intellectual Property Rights). The said interim order came to be extended from time to time. On notice from this court, the respondents have entered appearance through counsel. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she did B.A. (English) in Stella Maris College, Chennai and got first class. Subsequently, she also did M.A. (English) under the Tamil Nadu Open University system and came first class. She also got LLM Degree given by the National University of Singapore on 30.6.2008. But, however, the duration of the said court is only one year, unlike the LLM / ML degree in the Indian Universities, it is two years course. The petitioner also got a Post Graduate Diploma in Intellectual Property Rights Law conferred by the National Law School of India University. She had also cleared National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in IPR Law called for by the first respondent. Pursuant to her application, she was called for an interview by a letter dated 16.5.2012. Subsequent to the interview, the petitioner was informed by a letter dated 18.6.2012 that her name was kept in the merit list for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in IPR Law. Further she was informed that she will be required to produce a certificate for clarification that one year LLM degree certificate issued by the University of Singapore is equivalent to the two years ML degree course offered by Indian universities either from the UGC or from the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi. 4. Further she was informed that she will be required to produce a certificate for clarification that one year LLM degree certificate issued by the University of Singapore is equivalent to the two years ML degree course offered by Indian universities either from the UGC or from the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi. 4. But it is seen from the petitioner's typed set that when she wrote to the UGC, the UGC by a communication, dated 26.7.2012 informed her that the UGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the grant of the Master's Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 will apply to all Master Degree course offered by Indian Universities and the duration is set out as follows : "No student shall be eligible for the award of the Master's degree unless he/she has successfully completed a minimum of two years after the First degree or five years after Plus Two or earned the minimum number of credits prescribed by the university for the programme." 5. In the meanwhile, the UGC also informed the petitioner by a communication, dated 11.09.2012 that there was no mechanism of recognition of Foreign Universities. In support of the same, the minutes of the 488th meeting of the UGC held on 6.9.2012 was enclosed and in paragraph 2.03, it was stated as follows: "2.03. To consider the amendment in respect of UGC (Minimum Standards of Instructions for the grant of the Master's Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 for giving effect to one year LLM Degree as part of restructuring of legal education. The Commission considered the amendments in respect of UGC (Minimum Standards of Instructions for the grant of the Master's Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 for giving effect to one year LLM Degree as part of restructuring of legal education and approved the same." It is in the strength of these materials, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. Mr.K.Ravindranath, learned Standing Counsel for the UGC stated that the petitioner's own documents show that the UGC has no mechanism to grant any equivalence certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner stated that the Association of Indian Universities also must be asked to decide the equivalent. She further stated that one year LLM course has now been approved by the UGC and persons who secured foreign LLM degree, are also eligible to enroll for Ph.D programme. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner stated that the Association of Indian Universities also must be asked to decide the equivalent. She further stated that one year LLM course has now been approved by the UGC and persons who secured foreign LLM degree, are also eligible to enroll for Ph.D programme. 7. This is sought to be controverted by the counsel for the UGC by stating that the resolution referred to by the petitioner is only an approval for one year programme and not an equivalence granted for the degree obtained from the outside country to be treated as equivalent. The petitioner has given a list of names of Professors who are working in different National Universities in India and that they were appointed even though they have done one year LLM degree course in a foreign university. The counsel for the University stated that unless the UGC gives equivalence, the University cannot decide the issue relating to equivalence of one year LLM degree course. 8. Since the University informed the petitioner that she should get a clarification either from the UGC or from the Association of Indian Universities, it has to be seen whether such things are feasible for compliance. Since the UGC has taken a stand that they have no mechanism, it has to be seen whether the Association of Indian Universities can be directed to provide equivalence. Even the equivalence given by the Association of Indian Universities has got any legal validity came to be considered by the Supreme Court in TariqIslam v. Aligarh Muslim University reported in (2001) 8 SCC 546 and in paragraph 8, the Supreme Court had observed as follows : "8. In the present case, the High Court has merely relied upon a book published as Equivalence of Foreign Degrees by the Association of Indian Universities and places its interpretation that the BA (Hons) degree possessed by the appellant is not equivalent to Master's degree of Aligarh University and, therefore, the appellant lacks essential qualification for appointment as Lecturer. The contents of the publication, apart from the book itself, cannot be ascribed with any official sanctity of binding force or authority. The glaring facts arising in this case have not been taken note of by the High Court. The appellant had already obtained MPhil and PhD degrees from the respondent University. The contents of the publication, apart from the book itself, cannot be ascribed with any official sanctity of binding force or authority. The glaring facts arising in this case have not been taken note of by the High Court. The appellant had already obtained MPhil and PhD degrees from the respondent University. At the time of his admission to MPhil leading to PhD course in the Department of Philosophy, the question of equivalence in qualification was examined in detail and the Academic Council approved his admission to MPhil or PhD course. In the event his qualification of BA (Hons) degree from the Council of National Academic Awards is not equivalent to Master's degree, he could not have been admitted to MPhil leading to PhD course. But to say that such acceptance of such equivalence is only for the purpose of admission to MPhil leading to PhD course and not for other purposes will lead to anomalous results. Equivalence of qualification has to be determined before a person is allowed to undergo a course. When the appellant as a result of such admission obtained such high qualifications as MPhi1/PhD, it is difficult to imagine that the equivalence of qualification obtained by him earlier was not considered by the University. After having obtained such degrees, to nullify the equivalence declared by the Academic Council and the Vice-Chancellor will be to put the clock back causing grave injustice to the appellant. Had he been denied admission on the ground that his qualification is not equivalent to Master's degree, he might have obtained an equivalent qualification or pursued his studies elsewhere. That opportunity having been deprived to him and his admission to such courses having been ratified based on the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee, it cannot be nullified in the manner it has been done." (Emphasis added) 9. Since the university being an employer had advertised to the post and called for applications stating that persons must have P.G. Degree in Law given by the Indian Universities or any other equivalent qualification, it is for them to consider the case of the petitioner by placing materials before the appropriate academic committee constituted by the authority. 10. Since the university being an employer had advertised to the post and called for applications stating that persons must have P.G. Degree in Law given by the Indian Universities or any other equivalent qualification, it is for them to consider the case of the petitioner by placing materials before the appropriate academic committee constituted by the authority. 10. In the light of the same, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to place the matter before the academic committee of the university, which will consider the materials produced by the petitioner and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.