JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant University, learned counsel for the Union of India, learned counsel for the University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC'), as also learned counsel for the respondents writ petitioners. 2. The appellant University is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 20.07.2018, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, in W.P.(C) No. 1187 of 2017, whereby, the writ application filed by the respondents writ petitioners, claiming that they be granted the degree of B.Tech. in Civil Engineering, pursuant to their exit from the integrated course of M.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management, after successfully completing eight semesters, was allowed by the Writ Court. 3. The writ petitioners were pursuing five years integrated course in M.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management, in the appellant University. It is an admitted fact by the appellant University that the integrated course of M.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management, is the merger of two courses, i.e., B.Tech. in Civil Engineering and M.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management. The University authorities themselves granted option to the students to exit after completion of four years / eight semesters, upon which they were to be granted the B.Tech. degree. The respondents writ petitioners herein opted for exit from the course of M.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management, after completion of four years / eight semesters of studies, but they were given the degree of B.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management, and not B.Tech. in Civil Engineering. Prayer of the respondents writ petitioners was refused by the University for granting them the degree of B.Tech. in Civil Engineering, which compelled them to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1187 of 2017. 4. The said writ petition was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Single Judge, wherein, the Hon'ble Single Judge took note of the fact that the integrated M.Tech. course in Water Engineering and Management, was the merger of two courses, i.e., B.Tech. in Civil Engineering and M.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management, and the option of exit was allowed by the University itself. 5. The Writ Court has also taken note of the fact that a notification dated 5.7.2014 had been issued by the UGC in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, specifying the nomenclature of degrees for the purpose of the said section. 5. The Writ Court has also taken note of the fact that a notification dated 5.7.2014 had been issued by the UGC in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, specifying the nomenclature of degrees for the purpose of the said section. The said notification has also been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit by the appellants, which shows that the UGC with the approval of the Central Government specified the nomenclature of the degrees. The list of various degrees have been given in the tabular form in the said Gazette notification, in which, it is also stated that in the bottom most row of each table the nomenclatures of degrees that are presently in vogue in some institutions were found to be neither conventional, nor reflective of a real innovation in knowledge and are de-specified with the suggestion that the same may be restructured / changed as suggested in the said notification. The degree of B.Tech is shown in serial No. 60 of the said notification, and in the bottom row of the said table, the degree which was found to be neither conventional nor reflective of a real innovation in knowledge, was shown as 'BCE' and it was recommended that it be restructured as B.Tech / BE (Civil Engineering). 6. The Hon'ble Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the appellant University had issued one notification dated 4.9.2014, which was with respect to the exercise of the option of exit by the students undergoing different courses, in which, it was clarified that in engineering courses, upon the exit after the 8th semester, the students will be given the degree of B.Tech. in the subject concerned, provided they have the requisite credits. On the basis of this notification, the writ petitioners were given the degree of B.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management, and not B.Tech. in Civil Engineering. The Hon'ble Single Judge has held that the notification dated 4.9.2014 ought to have been read in conformity with the notification of the UGC dated 5.7.2014, in which, the UGC had given clarification about the degree of B.Tech. in Civil Engineering. 7. in Water Engineering and Management, and not B.Tech. in Civil Engineering. The Hon'ble Single Judge has held that the notification dated 4.9.2014 ought to have been read in conformity with the notification of the UGC dated 5.7.2014, in which, the UGC had given clarification about the degree of B.Tech. in Civil Engineering. 7. The Hon'ble Single Judge has also found after comparison the course structures of the appellant University with the course structures of reputed University / Institutes of Technology, such as Jamia Milia Islamia (Central University), NIT Warangal and IIT Kharagpur, that the writ petitioners had studied the same entire course of B.Tech. in Civil Engineering, as imparted in those University / Institutes of Technology. 8. The Hon'ble Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the degrees, which have been awarded to the writ petitioners, are of no use to them, as neither they would be allowed by any reputed University to purse the M.Tech course, nor they would be entitled to apply for suitable technical jobs in any Government Organisation or Corporation / Company, on the basis of the degree granted to them. The Hon'ble Single Judge has opined that in fact the writ petitioners have been given blunt swords which have no utility in their practical life. With these findings, the Writ Court had directed the University to recall the earlier certificates issued to the writ petitioners and issue fresh certificates of B.Tech. in Civil Engineering forthwith. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the appellant University has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant University has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the Hon'ble Single has sat over the opinion of the experts in academic matters, to grant degrees which was not even approved by the University and the UGC. Learned counsel has drawn our attention towards the affidavit filed by the UGC in the present appeal, in which, it is stated in paragraph-9, as follows:- “9.That the petitioners have taken admission in 5 years M.Tech in Water Engineering and Management and they can be offered the degree of B.Tech after completing four years / eight semesters by mentioning the specialization in the parentheses. To decide, whether the degree should be awarded in Civil Engineering or Water Engineering and Management, the help of experts may be taken who can advice based on the curriculum of the programme.” 10. Placing reliance on this affidavit, learned counsel for the appellant University submitted that since it was upon the University to decide whether the degree should be awarded in Civil Engineering or Water Engineering and Management with the help of the Experts, the Writ Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the University to grant the degree of B.Tech. in Civil Engineering to the writ petitioners, who had opted for exit after eight semesters. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents writ petitioners had opted exit from the M.Tech. course after completion of four years / eight semesters and they had the requisite credits. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L.Ramesh and Ors, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 , wherein where, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered its earlier decisions on the subject, and placing reliance upon them, has laid down the law as follows:- “30. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan the Court in somewhat similar matter observed thus: “12. … It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection, etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so-called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.” 31. In Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar the Court observed thus: “9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the Selection Committees concerned which invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection.” 32. In J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik the Court while stressing on the importance of the functions of the expert body observed that the expert body consisted of persons coming from different walks of life who were engaged in or interested in the field of education and had wide experience and were entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by courts. *** *** *** 38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.” (Emphasis supplied). 11. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.” (Emphasis supplied). 11. Placing reliance on this decision, learned counsel for the appellant University submitted that in the present case the Writ Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by sitting in appeal over the decision of the University, and its Academic Council, and which is based on the guidelines of the UGC, and as such, the impugned Judgment of the Writ Court is fit to be set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has drawn our attention towards the recommendation of the Expert Committee of the University, which has also been brought on record in the supplementary affidavit by the appellants themselves. The meeting of the Expert Committee was held on 31st March, 2012, in which, one of the decisions that had been taken by the Experts Committee, is as follows:- “1. In the larger interest of the students the committee recommended that there should be a provision of dual degree i.e. B.Tech in Civil Engineering after completion of four years and M.Tech in Water Engineering and Management after completion of five years.” The only reply which the learned counsel for the appellants has given about this opinion of the Experts Committee, is that this recommendation was never approved by the Academic Council of the University. 13. The stands of the learned counsels for the respondent UGC, and Union of India are in favour of the respondents writ petitioners, and they have submitted that the students, upon exercising the option to exist, after completion of course of four years / eight semesters, in view of the fact that the course in M.Tech in Water Engineering and Management is an integrated course of two courses, namely, B.Tech in Civil Engineering and M.Tech in Water Engineering and Management, there could be no justification for not granting the degree of B.Tech in Civil Engineering to the students, rather, their specific stand is that if the students are not given the degree of B.Tech in Civil Engineering, this would cause irreparable damage to the students. 14. 14. It is also an admitted fact that the degree had been granted to the respondents writ petitioners about three years ago, and still all the respondents writ petitioners are jobless and without any opportunity even for higher studies on the basis of the said degree. However, the stand of the University in this regard is that pursuant to the order passed by the Writ Court, the students were given the provisional certificate of B.Tech in Civil Engineering, but the said degree was only provisional one, subject to the outcome of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 15. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we find that admittedly the course of M.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management is an integrated course of two degrees, i.e., B.Tech. in Civil Engineering and M.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management. Had the students undertaken these courses separately, they would normally had to spend six years in getting both the degrees separately. The courses were integrated, so that both the courses could be undertaken simultaneously and completed in five years. The option was given by the University itself to the students to exit the course upon completion of four years / eight semesters. Admittedly, B.Tech course is of four years duration and M.Tech course is of two years duration. There is no dispute to the fact that each of the writ petitioners have successfully undergone the integrated course for four years / eight semesters. The only dispute is that respondents writ petitioners were given the degree of B.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management on the basis of the language used in the notification dated 4.9.2014, in which, it is stated that after completion of eight semesters, the students would be given B.Tech in the 'subject concerned'. Even though, the Experts Committee of the University had recommended that there should be provision for dual degree, i.e., B.Tech. in Civil Engineering after completion of four years and M.Tech. in Water Engineering and Management after completion of five years, for the reasons best known to the respondent University, this recommendation of the Experts Committee appears to have not been approved by the Academic Council of the respondent University. The reason has not been explained as to why this recommendation of the Experts Committee has not been approved as yet by the Academic Council of the respondent University. 16. The reason has not been explained as to why this recommendation of the Experts Committee has not been approved as yet by the Academic Council of the respondent University. 16. Be that as it may, it is not the fact that there was no recommendation of the Experts Committee of academicians in favour of the students and the Writ Court had sat over the recommendation of the experts' opinion in academic matters. It was the Expert Committee of the appellant University itself, which have recommended for granting the degree of B.Tech in Civil Engineering upon completion of four years / eight semesters, but for the reasons unknown, the same was not approved by the Academic Council. Placing reliance on this recommendation, as also the recommendation of the UGC about nomenclature of the degrees, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition directing the University to grant the degree of B.Tech in Civil Engineering to the respondents writ petitioners. Even in the affidavit filed by the UGC, it is stated that the students could be offered the degree of B. Tech after completing four years / eight semesters by mentioning the specialization in the parentheses and even in the notification issued by the UGC on 05.07.2014, the re-structured degree was shown as B.Tech/BE with Civil Engineering in parentheses. As such, we fail to understand as to why the appellant University was / is reluctant in granting the degree of B.Tech in Civil Engineering to the students after completion of four years / eight semesters and also passing of the examination, particularly, when they were undergoing integrated course in which, B.Tech in Civil Engineering was the lead course. The Writ Court has also compared the course structures with other University / MIT / IIT and found that the students had undergone the same course as offered by the other reputed University / Institutes of Technology. We are actually surprised on the reluctant attitude of the University in granting the required degree to the students which has resulted in an un-repute to the University itself, inasmuch as, their students on the basis of the degree granted by the University are the ultimate sufferers and are not able to get any job, nor they are able to undergo any higher study on the basis of the degree granted to them. In fact, more than three years of precious times of the students have been wasted in this fight with the University, and after the writ application was allowed by the Writ Court, they were only given a provisional certificate in B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) with the rider that this certificate shall be subject to outcome of this Letters Patent Appeal. This action was again only adding salt to the wounds of the students, as this degree was also of no help to the students. 17. For the forgoing reasons, we find that the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court is based on correct findings and based upon the guidelines of the UGC and also based upon the recommendation of the Expert Committee of the appellant University itself. As such the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavaiah (Dr)'s case (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no help to the appellants, inasmuch as, it was a recommendation of the experts' body of the University itself to grant such degree to the writ petitioners. In fact, if the recommendations are not followed by the University, the action of the University itself may be suffering from illegality or patent material irregularity. 18. We also cannot loose sight of the fact that in an unnecessary litigation, the precious more than three years time of the students have been wasted, and due to the impugned action of the appellant University, the students have been rendered jobless and without any opportunity to get the higher studies in other technical Universities. 19. We accordingly, dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal, imposing exemplary cost upon the appellant University, which is hereby, directed to pay Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) to each of the respondent writ petitioners, positively within the period of three months from today. 20. The aforesaid interlocutory application also stands disposed of.