ORDER : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Present petition has been filed by four students who are aggrieved against the decision taken by the Equivalence Committee of the respondent University to deny them admission in Ph.D. Programme. It is pleaded in the writ petition that petitioners having successfully completed their Masters are eligible to be enrolled for pursuing their Ph.D. studies. Hence, in the writ petition it is prayed that fresh allotment list dated 3.8.2016 (Annx.11) issued by respondent No.1, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur, be set aside. A perusal of impugned list of provisional allotment of Supervisors reveal that it is stated therein that the Equivalence Committee has found the petitioners ineligible as they have done two years M.Sc. Medical instead of requirement of three years course by the respondent University. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondent Rajasthan University of Health Sciences on 7.1.2016 had issued a notification inviting online applications for admission through entrance test to Pre Ph.D. Programme in the faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Para Medical Sciences. Last date for filing online application form was 25.1.2016. It is further averred in the writ petition that Rajveer Singh Rathore, petitioner No.1, on 19.8.2014 obtained degree in M.Sc. Medical (Pharmacology), whereas petitioner No.2 Mohammed Nasir Khan completed his M.Sc. Medical (Micro Biology) on 22.8.2014, petitioner No.3 Monika passed M.Sc. Medical (Anatomy) on 27.7.2015 and petitioner No.4 Kuldeep Yadav also successfully obtained M.Sc. Medical degree in Micro Biology on 12.8.2015. 3. All the petitioners have passed their Masters course from NIMS University. 4. It is stated that petitioners were found eligible by respondent No.1 Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and were issued admit cards to appear in entrance test. It is averred that result of entrance test was declared and names of petitioners were included in the list of successful candidates. Petitioners were asked to appear in interview scheduled to be held on 15.2.2016. It is further stated that on 18.2.2016 respondent No.1 University issued a provisional Supervisor allotment list and names of petitioners were part of the said list. It is further stated that vide Annexure-7 petitioners were allotted Supervisors under whom they were to pursue their Ph.D. programme. Petitioners were asked to appear in interview scheduled to be held on 15.2.2016. It is further stated that on 18.2.2016 respondent No.1 University issued a provisional Supervisor allotment list and names of petitioners were part of the said list. It is further stated that vide Annexure-7 petitioners were allotted Supervisors under whom they were to pursue their Ph.D. programme. Grievance of the petitioners is that suddenly vide impugned order (Annexure-11) it was announced that since degree of Masters obtained by the petitioners has not been found equivalent to the studies imparted by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, hence, petitioners are ineligible to pursue their Doctorate/Ph.D. 5. Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent University, has submitted that the Equivalence Committee consisting of seven experts held its meeting on 20.6.2016 and came to the conclusion that since petitioners are not having M.Sc. Medical course of three years duration as per Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Masters degree obtained by the petitioners cannot be equated with the degree of Masters awarded by respondent No.1 University. It will be apposite here to reproduce decision of the Equivalence Committee dated 20.6.2016 as under:- Equivalence committee minutes of the meeting held on 20.06.2016 A meeting of Equivalence Committee of RUHS was held on 20.06.2016 (Monday) at 2:00 pm in the chamber of Dr. D.K. Gupta, Pro Vice-Chancellor RUHS under his chairmanship. After detailed discussions & deliberations the following decisions were taken in the meeting:- 1- Review/reconsideration of the decision taken in the last meeting dated 30.05.2016:- The minutes of Equivalence Committee dated 30.05.2016 were put up before the Academic Council on 06.06.2016 (under agenda item No.9) for necessary approval/decision. After detailed discussions, it was decided by the Academic Council to refer the matter back to Equivalence Committee for review/reconsideration. Decision: As per the directions of the Academic Council, the Equivalence Committee reviewed its decision taken in its last meeting dated 30.05.2016. After thorough discussions, the committee recommended that M.Sc. (Medical) course should be of three years duration as per RUHS pattern. It was further recommended that duration of M.Sc. (Medical) (i.e. Three Years duration) course should be specifically mentioned in all entrance examinations wherever M.Sc. (Medical) qualification is required. For Pre Ph.D. Exam, the candidates possessing the M.Sc. (Medical) degree of two years duration should not allowed for RUHS Ph.D. admission. It was further recommended that duration of M.Sc. (Medical) (i.e. Three Years duration) course should be specifically mentioned in all entrance examinations wherever M.Sc. (Medical) qualification is required. For Pre Ph.D. Exam, the candidates possessing the M.Sc. (Medical) degree of two years duration should not allowed for RUHS Ph.D. admission. Eligibility for RUHS Ph.D. program in Radiation Physics, the minimum requisite qualification should be M.Sc. In Medical Physics or post M.Sc. Diploma (P.G. Diploma) in Radiological/Medical Physics approved by AERB (Atomic Energy Regularity Board) and MCI (Medical Council of India). The above recommendations (minutes) of the Equivalence Committee will be sent to Academic Council for necessary approval/decision in its next meeting. (Dr. D.K. Gupta) (Dr. Bharti Malhotra) (Dr. Arun Chougule) (Dr. Arun Gupta) (Dr. Mukul Mathur) (Dr. Sunil Goenka) (Dr. Jogendra Sharma) 6. During the course of arguments learned counsel appearing for the petitioners could not show any document that M.Sc. Degree obtained by the petitioners is recognised by the University Grants Commission to pursue Ph.D. Course. 7. Shri Ashok Mehta learned counsel for the petitioners has extensively relied upon Annexure-9 to contend that since post-graduation degree awarded to the petitioners by NIMS University is recognised by Medical Council of India, hence, petitioners could not be denied admission to Ph.D. course merely because they have not completed their post-graduation in three years. 8. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable. Each University is entitled to maintain its academic standards, prescribe curriculum and ensure academic excellence to maintain and enhance name and reputation of the University. For this reason, every University is an autonomous body. To ensure uniformity, degree awarded is to be recognised by the University Grants Commission which is an apex body. It is undeniable fact that Rajasthan University of Health Sciences impart three years course for awarding Masters degree in subjects in which petitioners have obtained their Masters degree from NIMS University. Standards of teaching, curriculum to ensure academic excellence can be different in respect of each University. Therefore, each University has an Equivalence Committee which examine the degree awarded by another University to come to the conclusion whether the same is equivalent to standards laid by University Grants Commission or of the University granting admission. Standards of teaching, curriculum to ensure academic excellence can be different in respect of each University. Therefore, each University has an Equivalence Committee which examine the degree awarded by another University to come to the conclusion whether the same is equivalent to standards laid by University Grants Commission or of the University granting admission. In the present case, Equivalence Committee constituting seven highly claimed academicians, has come to the conclusion that post-graduation degree obtained by the petitioners is not equivalent to the standards of Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. Academicians are experts in their field. They are best judge to assess and examine standards of equivalence. 9. Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh [1994 (suppl.) 3 SCC 516] held that there are disparities in standards of education in various universities in the country. The court further held that it is patent that holder of a post-graduate degree from one university is not necessary of the same standard as holder of same post-graduate degree from another university. Thus, the Apex Court has also recognised the fact that Masters degree awarded by the two Universities may be having different standards. 10. Supreme Court in University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) [2014(1) RSJ 69] held as under:- "29. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 , Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284 , has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. For attaining the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. Candidates declared eligible for lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in Universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India" 11. In view of settled legal position that the courts shall not substitute its opinion with the opinion of experts who are educationists and academicians, this court find no fault with the decision of the Equivalence Committee which has been reproduced above. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and same is dismissed.