JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the refusal to admit her to the Senior Secondary course conducted by the 5th respondent, (SCOLE-Kerala), an open school system carried on by the State Government under the name State Council for Open and Lifelong Education (SCOLE). The petitioner has passed the Secondary School examination in the year 2017 under the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). The petitioner's certificate is produced at Ext.P1. She has appeared for the Secondary School examination taking English, Data Entry Operation, Home Science, Malayalam and Business Studies. The petitioner, admittedly, has a learning disability and is unable to cope with Mathematics and hence, the subjects were specifically chosen under the NIOS. The petitioner now seeks admission to the Senior Secondary Course in Humanities with the SCOLE-Kerala. 2. The petitioner, has been declined admission by reason of Ext.P2 Circular, which, though brought out in the year 2011, was not implemented all these years. Even in the last year, the students similarly situated as the petitioner were given admission to SCOLE-Kerala for the Senior Secondary Course, without reference to the prescription in Ext.P2. It is pointed out that the NIOS has also, by Ext.P3, specified that there is no insistence, at the NIOS, of any subject combination, but, the Government of Kerala has prescribed certain conditions. The petitioner, hence, challenge the condition prescribed as arbitrary and the refusal of admission to the petitioner in the subject year to be discriminatory. The petitioner has relied on two decisions: Special Civil Application No. 7406 of 2010 - Sidharth Jagdishbhai Panchal through Father Jagdish D. Panchal v. Admission Committee for Professional Diploma Course (ACPDC) of the High Court of Gujarat and Bablu Kumar v. The State of Bihar of the High Court of Judicature at Patna to advance the case of the petitioner. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for SCOLE-Kerala has filed a counter affidavit, producing the equivalency as issued by the Government of Kerala to the Secondary Courses conducted by NIOS and has also produced the report of the Steering Committee, which; comprised of experts in the field of education, has insisted upon the prescription as brought out in Ext.P2. Ext.R5(a) is said to be the decision of the Steering Committee. The State has decided to insist upon the prescriptions made in the 2011 Circular, as per the recommendation of the Steering Committee from the year 2017-2018. 4. Ext.R5(a) is said to be the decision of the Steering Committee. The State has decided to insist upon the prescriptions made in the 2011 Circular, as per the recommendation of the Steering Committee from the year 2017-2018. 4. At the outset it is to be noticed that the NIOS has no administrative control over the 5th respondent SCOLE-Kerala. They are independent open schools conducted by the Central Government and the State Government. The NIOS has been formed in accordance with the National Policy of Education, as formulated by the Central Government in the year 1996. The earlier authority constituted was National Open School Society (NOSS), at which point, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) was the certifying and examining authority. In the year 2002, the certifying and examining authority was also resolved to be the NOSS, as per the resolution of the Government of India, followed by a Circular dated 11.02.2002, which is produced at Ext.P6. As has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the notification issued by the NIOS, as seen from Ext.P3, indicates that the NIOS do not prescribe any subject combination. However, it is also specified that the Government of Kerala has prescribed the following condition on subject combination: “English, Malayalam, Mathematics, Science and Social Science or Psychology compulsory for Secondary Course. Two languages and three elective subjects for Sr. Secondary. xxx xxx xxx” 5. The conditions so stipulated is from Ext.P2 circular. Ext.P2 equalizes the secondary certification issued by the NIOS to the certificates issued by the respective State Boards on the following conditions: “i. In the case of Secondary Education, the candidates of NIOS should have studied two languages, Social Science/ Psychology, Science and Mathematics and should have obtained a grade not below D+ (30% score) for each subject. ii. One of the two languages at the Secondary level should be Malayalam. This condition is applicable to those candidates registering for Secondary Education from the academic year 2011-2012 onwards iii. In the case of Senior Secondary Education; the candidates of NIOS should have studied two languages and three optional subjects and should have obtained a grade not below D+ (30% score) for each subject. xxx xxx xxx” 6. This condition is applicable to those candidates registering for Secondary Education from the academic year 2011-2012 onwards iii. In the case of Senior Secondary Education; the candidates of NIOS should have studied two languages and three optional subjects and should have obtained a grade not below D+ (30% score) for each subject. xxx xxx xxx” 6. In the case of secondary education, it is insisted that the candidate of NIOS should have opted two languages, one of which should be Malayalam, three subjects, i.e. Social Science/Psychology, Science and Mathematics and should have obtained a Grade not below D+(30% score) for each subject. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has studied two languages and one is Malayalam. However, the subject specification with respect to the Social Science/Psychology, Science and Mathematics is not satisfied by the petitioner. This, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is by reason of a learning disability. 7. As has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, it is an admitted fact that even without the subject specification, the students having secondary qualification of the NIOS were admitted to the Senior Secondary courses conducted by SCOLE Kerala. Despite the existence of Ext.P2 Circular, the said practice has been discontinued as per Ext.R5(a). Ext.R5(b) indicates that the Steering Committee, a body of Experts, had decided on the insistence of the specifications as reflected in Ext.P2 circular. The said insistence is also to ensure the standard of education and the certification granted by the SCOLE-Kerala. On the basis of the recommendation of the Steering Committee, Ext.P2 Circular, and later, Ext.R5(a) dated 08.11.2016 has been notified. The said orders specifically equalizes the secondary certificates issued by the NIOS only if the student has studied two languages, one of which is Malayalam and three optional subjects, being Social Science/Psychology, Science and Mathematics. It is specifically noticed in Ext.R5(a) that the relaxation to the respective conditions specified in the Government Order would be available only for the academic year 2016-2017. Hence, from the academic year 2017-2018, SCOLE-Kerala has decided to insist upon the conditions for getting admitted to a Senior Secondary course with the SCOLE-Kerala. It is specifically noticed in Ext.R5(a) that the relaxation to the respective conditions specified in the Government Order would be available only for the academic year 2016-2017. Hence, from the academic year 2017-2018, SCOLE-Kerala has decided to insist upon the conditions for getting admitted to a Senior Secondary course with the SCOLE-Kerala. It is also pointed out that the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) offered by the State Board also insists for learning of these subjects and languages and the open school ensures a similar curriculum and certification, for those who have not been able to take up regular schooling and in later life is deprived of admission to pursue secondary and senior secondary education; by reason only of advancing age. 8. Sidharth Jagdishbhai Panchal (supra) was concerned with the denial of admission to the diploma courses in Polytechnics, to a student, who passed the secondary examination of NIOS. The Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board had recognised the examination conducted by the NIOS as equivalent to that of the State Board. However a Statute, enacted to specifically regulate the admissions in the Diploma Courses, did not include the qualification obtained under NIOS. The Court found that NIOS by its constitution is similar to CBSE and CISE; being a body constituted by and under the Education Department of the Central Government and cannot be discriminated. Hence, the State was directed to amend the Statute regulating admissions to diploma courses, including the secondary education under NIOS also. In the instant case, there cannot be any claim of discrimination, since, admittedly, the course under NIOS is recognised and there is also equalization with respect to the secondary certification made by the State Board; contingent only to the subject specification. 9. Bablu Kumar (supra) a student from NIOS was declined admission for the Bachelor of Pharmacy course for reason of a communication from the Pharmacy Council of India declining recognition to NIOS. The Pharmacy Council did not appear despite service of notice and an adverse inference was drawn, thus recognising the secondary certification granted by the NIOS. 10. Both these decisions are instances of refusal to recognise and not equalization on conditions of subject specification. The subject stipulation, again, is in the context of equalization with the certification of the State Board, which cannot be faulted, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. Both these decisions are instances of refusal to recognise and not equalization on conditions of subject specification. The subject stipulation, again, is in the context of equalization with the certification of the State Board, which cannot be faulted, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal - (2009) 1 SCC 610 held that equivalency is a technical matter to be decided by the academic body. 11. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision made on the basis of the Expert Committee recommendation. Especially since; on interference, it would amount to this Court substituting its opinion for that of the Expert Committee. The petitioner contends that the petitioner can pursue her Senior Secondary within the State only if she is admitted to the course under SCOLE; especially given her learning disability. However, that cannot result in a direction interfering with the decision taken by the expert academic body to maintain a particular standard. Further, it is to be noticed that Ext.P3, relied on by the petitioner, itself was in the year 2015; specifying the subject stipulation insisted upon by the Kerala Board. The petitioner finished her secondary course at the NIOS only in the year 2016-2017. The petitioner cannot claim any legitimate expectation. The petitioner cannot be granted any of the reliefs prayed for. 12. The petitioner is said to have been admitted to the course and also contends that she has remitted the fees. The learned Standing Counsel would specifically point out that the submission made by the petitioner in the memorandum is as to the remittance having been done through a private institution. SCOLE-Kerala, it was asserted, has not authorised any private institution to admit students on behalf of itself. It is also contended that any student making application would have to remit the fees and the scrutiny comes only at a later stage. If, on scrutiny, the student is found to be eligible to be admitted to the course, necessarily, study materials would be supplied. However, since the petitioner's application is said to have been rejected, SCOLE-Kerala shall refund the fees within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, on the petitioner making an application evidencing the remittances made. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs.