JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a candidate for the post of Reader in Public Administration, pursuant to advertisement dated 22.05.2009 issued by the Utkal University, has filed this application to quash the selection of opposite parties No. 5 and 6 for the post of Reader in Public Administration, as they do not possess the requisite qualification and otherwise not eligible for the post, and further seeks for direction to the opposite parties to select and appoint her as Reader in Public Administration, she being the most eligible candidate. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner acquired post graduate degree in Political Science and Public Administration and completed M. Phil, in Public Administration and did her doctorate degree in the said subject. From Pondicherry University she has also acquired Master in Business Administration in Human Resource Management. As such she was working as a Lecturer in Political Science from 01.08,2000 to 12.08.2003 in Ranpur College, Ranpur, Khurda. Thereafter, she was working as Sr. Lecturer (Human Resources) in Biju Pattnaik Institute of Information Technology and Management, Bhubaneswar with effect from 01.03.2007. She was also discharging the duty of Guest Faculty in the Post Graduate Department of Public Administration, Utkal University during the period 2002 to 2003. 2.1. The opposite party No. 2 - Utkal University issued an advertisement on 22.05.2009 for filling up of the vacancies in the posts of Reader and Lecturer in various subjects, including Public Administration, in terms of the conditions, guidelines and qualification mentioned therein. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner along with others, including opposite parties No. 5 and 6, applied for the post of Reader in Public Administration. Though the petitioner submitted her application, the same was not considered. Therefore, she approached the authority concerned to give an opportunity to her to appear at interview for the post of Reader in Public Administration, as she fulfills all the conditions as per the advertisement. Due to inaction of the authorities, she filed an application on 18.12.2009 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before opposite, party No. 4, who, in turn informed on 12.01.2010 that due to lack of adequate teaching experience, her application has not been taken into consideration. Due to inaction of the authorities, she filed an application on 18.12.2009 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before opposite, party No. 4, who, in turn informed on 12.01.2010 that due to lack of adequate teaching experience, her application has not been taken into consideration. As the petitioner thought that the information provided to her was not sufficient, she again submitted application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 on 16.01.2010. In response to same, opposite party No. 4 provided information on 29.01.2010 and thee petitioner, was not satisfied with the same. 2.2. The petitioner again applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 16.01.2010 with regard to the experience of teaching for the post of Reader and also sought complete information of all the candidates, who were considered eligible on teaching experience for the post of Reader as per the advertisement, in response to the same, opposite party No. 4 on 27.01.2010, replied that the University cannot furnish the career information of all the candidates without obtaining their consent in that regard under third party clause of the Right to Information Act, 2005 Against such information the petitioner preferred appeal on 19.02.2010 before opposite party No. 3, who, after considering the case of the petitioner, directed opposite party No. 4 on 22.02.2010 to furnish the information as asked by the petitioner within Jen days. The petitioner again filed another application on 06.03.2010 under Right to Information Act, 2005 in which complete information of all the candidates were sought by the petitioner. The opposite party No. 3, informed the petitioner on 08.03.2010 regarding the information supplied by the opposite party No. 4 that "the scrutiny committee is yet to finalize the list of eligible candidates to be called for interview for the post of Reader in Public Administration." When the matter thus stood, the application of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Reader in Public Administration was rejected. 2.3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the action of the opposite party-University, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4959 of 2010. On 16.03.2010, this Court passed an interim order that the petitioner shall be permitted appear in the interview without prejudice to the rights and contentions to be raised before this Court, but then her result shall not be published without obtaining the prior permission of the Court. On 16.03.2010, this Court passed an interim order that the petitioner shall be permitted appear in the interview without prejudice to the rights and contentions to be raised before this Court, but then her result shall not be published without obtaining the prior permission of the Court. Pursuant to such interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner appeared in the interview conducted on 22.03.2010. Thereafter, the opposite parties filed a misc. case praying to declare the name of successful candidates in the interview for the post of Reader in Public Administration. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 22.06.2010 directed that the opposite party-University shall declare/publish the result of the successful candidates, who have been selected in the interview, but appointment pursuant to the said publication of result shall be made only after taking leave of this Court. Consequentially, the result of successful candidates was published on 23.07.2010 and the opposite party No. 5 and 6 were declared selected having toped in the merit list. Thereafter, the petitioner impleaded them in the said writ application as opposite parties No. 5 and 6. As a result of which, the selection of opposite parties No. 5 and 6 has been challenged in the present writ application stating inter alia that both the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 do not possess the requisite qualification of Master Degree, M. Phil and Doctorate In Public Administration which are essential qualification for the post Reader in Public Administration. Hence this application. 3. Mr. P.C. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence stating inter alia that the petitioner is the only eligible candidate having P.G., M.Ph.D., and Ph.D. degree in Public Administration and got requisite teaching experience for selection to the post of Reader in Public Administration. Pursuant to advertisement issued by opposite party No. 2, her case was not considered as she had no teaching experience and because of interference of this Court, she was allowed to appear in the interview. Even pursuant to order passed by this Court, when the result was published, it was found that the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 have been selected as they possess the requisite qualification. It is contended that the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 are not eligible for selection to the post of Reader in Public Administration, as they possess the qualification in Political Science, though both Are distinguish and independent subjects. It is contended that the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 are not eligible for selection to the post of Reader in Public Administration, as they possess the qualification in Political Science, though both Are distinguish and independent subjects. Therefore, the selection of opposite parties No. 5 and 6, being contrary to the provisions of the Universities Act, 1989, the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 and UGC Regulations, 2000, is to be quashed and the petitioner being the only eligible candidate, she should be selected and appointed as Reader in Public Administration under the opposite party No. 2. 4. Mr. S. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 1 contended that since the petitioner challenged the selection for the post of Reader in Public Administration, pursuant to advertisement issued by opposite party No. 2, the State has no role to play in the matter. 5. The opposite parties No. 2 to 4 have entered appearance through Mr. G.P. Mohanty, learned counsel, but he was not present at the time of hearing. Since it is an old case of the year 2010, and in the mean time more than 8 years have passed, this Court, without granting any further adjournment, proceed with the matter on the basis of the materials available on record. 6. Mr. P. Chuli, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties No. 5 and 6 contended that the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 have requisite qualification and teaching experience for the post of Reader in Public Administration and following due procedure, they were called to appear in the interview and having found suitable, the result have been published declaring them selected for the post of Reader in Public Administration under the opposite party No. 2. It is further contended that even though the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 acquired specialization in Political Science but that itself IS interchangeable with Public Administration. Therefore, the selection of the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 for the post of Reader in Public Administration cannot be faulted with. More so, opposite party No. 2 bifurcated the Political Science department and established a new department, i.e. department of Public Administration having 32 seats. Therefore, the selection of the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 for the post of Reader in Public Administration cannot be faulted with. More so, opposite party No. 2 bifurcated the Political Science department and established a new department, i.e. department of Public Administration having 32 seats. The Professors and Readers in Political Science Department were imparting education to the students of Public Administration in view of the fact that both are interchangeable subjects, it is further contended that the claim made by the petitioner that she is only eligible candidate for the post of Reader in Public Administration, having the qualification of M. Phill and Ph.D. in Public Administration that ipso facto cannot determine the eligibility, unless she qualifies the interview conducted by the selection committee. Her application was rejected on the ground that she has no requisite qualification of teaching experience. Because of interference of this Court by passing an interim order, the petitioner participated in the process of selection and when she did not come out successful, filed this application challenging the selection of opposite parties No. 5 and 6, which is not permissible. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ application. He has relied upon the judgments in Rajbir Singh Dalar (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa, (2008) 9 SCC 284 ; Bhanu Prasad Panda [Dr.] v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University, (2001) 8 SCC 532 ; Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2001) 8 SCC 546 ; University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 ; Varanasya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya v. Dr. Rajkishore Tripathi, AIR 1977 SC 615 ; Medical Council of India v. Sarang, (2001) 8 SCC 427 ; Manish Kumar Sahai v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 ; and Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Siuasubramaniijan, (2010) 1 SCC 454. 7. Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No. 7 - UGC contended that University Grant Commission (UGC) is the competent authority to fix the criteria for selection and appointment of teachers in post graduate levels and also contended that both the Political Science and Public Administration department subjects are interchangeable. Therefore, the selection of opposite parties No. 5 and 6 cannot be said to be a wrong committed by opposite parties No. 2 to 4. Therefore, the selection of opposite parties No. 5 and 6 cannot be said to be a wrong committed by opposite parties No. 2 to 4. More particularly, the petitioner has no requisite teaching experience for selection for the post of Reader in Public Administration. He has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Rajbir Singh Dalar (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa, (2008) 9 SCC 284 , in which the judgment of the apex Court in Bhanu Prasad Panda (Dr.) v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University, (2001) 8 SCC 532 has been distinguished and a separate view has been taken contending that for the post of Reader and Lecturer, Public Administration and Political Science both the subjects being interchangeable the candidates having qualification In both the subjects can be taken into consideration. 8. This Court heard Mr. P.C. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate; Mr. P. Chuli, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 5 and 6; and Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No. 7 and perused the records. Though Mr. G.P. Mohanty, learned counsel entered appearance for opposites parties No. 2 to 4, at the time of hearing he was not present. Pleadings-having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission, as it is an old case of the year 2010. 9. Admittedly, an advertisement was issued by opposite party No. 2 on 22.05.2009 in Annexure-6 inviting applications in prescribed format from the eligible candidates for the different teaching posts under different Post Graduate Departments and Constituent Colleges of Utkal University with the specialization as mentioned against each. Two posts of reader in Public Administration belonging to UR category were published along with other subjects. In Clause-3 of the advertisement, it is stated that the qualification, experience & salary will be guided as per UGC norms. The last date of receipt of application was fixed to 18.06.2009 and under CIause-5 it has been specifically mentioned that applications received after due date in any manner will be summarily rejected and the application shall be submitted in the office of the Registrar (receipt Branch) on or before 18.06.2009. The last date of receipt of application was fixed to 18.06.2009 and under CIause-5 it has been specifically mentioned that applications received after due date in any manner will be summarily rejected and the application shall be submitted in the office of the Registrar (receipt Branch) on or before 18.06.2009. The guidelines and terms and conditions for the teaching position has been issued along with the advertisement dated 22.05.2009. So, far as reader is concerned under Clause-II It states as follows: "II) READER: (a) Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In addition to these candidates who join from outside the University system shall also possess at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the seven point Scale With latter grades, O, A, B, C, D, E, & F, at the Master's Degree level. (b) Five years of experience of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula." Since the advertisement was issued on 22.05.2009, under Clause-3 of the advertisement it is clearly indicated that qualification, experience and salary will be guided as per UGC norms. This Court refers to the UGC norms applicable to the present context. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of section 26 read with Section 14 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), and in supersession of the Regulations issued under University Grants Commission letter No. F.1-93/73 (CPP) part (v) dated 13th June, 1983 and No. F.1-11/87 (CPP-II) dated 19th September, 1991 and Notification No. 1-93/73 (CP) dated 19th February, 1985, 26th November 1985 and No. F3-1/94 (PS) dated 24th December, 1998, the University Grants Commission framed the regulations called, "The University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career Advancement of teachers. In Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations) 2000." (in short "Regulation, 2000"). It has also been clarified under sub-clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause-I as follows: "1. Short Title application and commencement: (i) These regulations may be called the University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career Advancement of teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000. It has also been clarified under sub-clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause-I as follows: "1. Short Title application and commencement: (i) These regulations may be called the University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career Advancement of teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000. (ii) They shall apply to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognised by the Commission, in consultation with, the university concerned under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act. (iii) They shall come into force with immediate effect" In View of such provisions of Regulation, 2000, it is applicable also to Utkal University, which has been constituted under the Orissa Universities Act and Universities First Statute, 1990. Under Clause 1.3.2 of the Regulation, 2000 it is stated as follows: "1.3.2 Reader: Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent-published work. In addition to these, candidates who join from outside the university system, shall also possess at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master's degree level. Five years of experience of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degrees and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula." On conjoint reading of the advertisement in Annexure-6 and the Regulation, 2000 issued by the U.G.C., the minimum requirement for the post in question is that one has to have good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In addition to these, candidates who join from outside the university system, shall also possess at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master's degree level and must have five years of experience of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degrees and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula. As per qualifications prescribed under Clause-2 of the Regulation, 2000, no person shall be appointed to a teaching post in University or in any of the institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he/she does not fulfill the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate subjects as provided in the Annexure. Pursuant to advertisement issued in Annexure-6 dated 22.05.2009, the petitioner along with opposite parties No. 5 and 6 have submitted their application for consideration for the post of Reader in Public Administration "open" under UR category but the petitioner's application was not taken into consideration as she has no requisite qualification as per clause-2 of the Regulation, 2000 of Notification March, 2000. This information was provided by the authority pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. But subsequently, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the interview without prejudice to the rights and contentions to be raised before this Court in Misc. Case No. 4353 of 2010 dated 16.03.2010 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 4959 of 2010. On 4th April, 2000, the University Grants Commission had communicated to the Registrars stating that the Regulations issued by the UGC are mandatory in nature and all the Universities are advised to strictly comply with them. It shall be necessary for the Universities and the management of colleges to make the necessary changes in their statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, etc. to incorporate these Regulations. Therefore, the UGC is the competent authority to prescribe the eligibility criteria for selection of teaching staff or an employee. It shall be necessary for the Universities and the management of colleges to make the necessary changes in their statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, etc. to incorporate these Regulations. Therefore, the UGC is the competent authority to prescribe the eligibility criteria for selection of teaching staff or an employee. Therefore, this Court vide order dated 06.04.2017 passed the following order: "06.12.2017 : After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in order to set the controversy at rest, this Court has thought it proper to direct the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the U.G.C. to seek clarification with respect to the fact regarding the status of the Political Science as well as Public Administration subject as to whether both are interchangeable or not?" In compliance of the same, an affidavit was filed by the opposite party No. 7 - U.G.C., duly sworn by one C.P. Gaut, Under Secretary, working under University Grants Commission, New Delhi, which has been recorded vide order dated 09.08.2018, 'wherein it has been specifically stated that on 04.07.2018, the UGC issued a public notice, which reads as follows: "It is hereby informed that on the issue, whether subjects of Political Science and Public Administration, can be considered inter-changeably for the purpose of appointment of Assistant Professor, it has been decided that both the subjects are inter-dependent yet discerningly distinct in nature and hence, the candidates with Masters degree/NET either in Political Science or Public Administration may be considered for faculty position in Political Science as well as Public Administration depending upon the requirement of expertise in the concerned Higher Education Institution (HEI) which may be decided by the concerned HEI." This clarifies the position that both the subjects Political Science and Public Administration are interdependent yet discerningly distinct in nature and hence, the candidates with Master degree/NET either in Political Science or Public Administration may be considered for faculty position in Political Science as well as Public Administration depending upon the requirement of expertise in the concerned Higher Education Institution (HEI) which may be decided by the concerned HEI. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 7 - UGC contended that such notification has been issued taking into account the law laid down by the apex Court in Rajbir Singh Dalai (Dr.) (supra) and also contended that the claim of the petitioner that she is only eligible candidate, cannot have any justification even though she has got specialization in the subject Public Administration as claimed by her. 11. Similar controversy had been raised in the case of Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda (supra), while selecting the post of Lecturer in Political Science in the department of Political Science and Public Administration in Sambalpur University. The appellant, Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda was initially appointed as a Research Assistant In the postgraduate, department under the post graduate department of the Sambalpur University. Pursuant to advertisement issued by the University for the post of Lecturer in Political Science, the appellant having secured the minimum prescribed marks in the subject of Public Administration, applied for the said post and he was selected. His selection was challenged before the Chancellor by the unsuccessful candidates. The Chancellor by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties in exercise of power under Section 5(10) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989, annulled the appointment of the appellant-Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda. Being aggrieved by the order of the Chancellor the appellant filed OJC No. 2521 of 1995 before this Court and this Court affirmed the decision of the Chancellor and dismissed the writ application. Against the judgment of this Court dated 25.02.1997 passed in OJC No. 2521 of 1995, the appellant approached the apex Court and the apex Court came to a definite conclusion that Department of Political Science and Public Administration are totally separate and distinct subjects and that the petitioner has no requisite qualification for appointment as Lecturer in Political Science and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the Chancellor as well as the judgment of this Court. 12. 12. But in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra), the apex Court, while considering the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Reader, qualification in "relevant subject" had been taken into consideration and the appellant therein possessing MA and Ph.D. in Political Science selected to the post of Reader in Public Administration held to be valid on the ground that UGC being the competent authority and the academic expert had regarded the Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline. Therefore, for the post of Reader and Lecturer in Public Administration and Political Science, a large number of appointments have been made in the University as well as in the Higher Education Department treating Political Science and Public Administration as one discipline and there are number of persons who have an MA and Ph.D. degrees in Political Science and are working as a teachers In Public Administration Department, and vice versa and therefore, held that Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable subjects. Their lordships while interpreting the Statute have taken into consideration the Mimansa Principles in paragraphs 21, 22 and 25, which reads as follows: "21. In Mimansa, casus omissus is known as adhyahara. The adhyahara principle permits us to add words to a legal text. However, the superiority of the Mimansa principles over Maxwell's principles in this respect is seen by the fact that Maxwell does not go into further detail and does not mention the sub-categories coming under the general category of casus omissus. In the Mimansa system, on the other hand, the general category of adhyahara has under it several sub-categories e.g. anusanga, anukarsha, vakyashesha, etc. Since in this case we are concerned with the anusanga principle, we may explain it in some detail. 22. The anusanga principle (or elliptical extension) states that an expression occurring in one clause is often meant also for a neighbouring clause, and it is only for economy that it is only mentioned in the former (see Jaimini 2, 2, 16). The anusanga principle has a further sub-categorisation. If a clause which occurs in a subsequent sentence is to be read into a previous sentence it is a case of tadapakarsha, but when it is vice versa it is a case of tadutkarsha. 25. The anusanga principle has a further sub-categorisation. If a clause which occurs in a subsequent sentence is to be read into a previous sentence it is a case of tadapakarsha, but when it is vice versa it is a case of tadutkarsha. 25. In our opinion, in the present case, the anusanga principle of Mimansa should be utilised and the expression "relevant subject" should also be inserted in the qualification for the post of Reader after the words (Cat the Masters degree level". Hence, we cannot accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia in this respect. However, we agree with Mr. Patwalia that since academic experts have regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline, it is not right for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts." 13. In Tariq islam v. Aligarh Muslim University [ (2001) 8 SCC 546 : 2002 SCC (L & S) 1] following its earlier decision of the, Constitution Bench of this Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 , the apex Court observed that "normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally are". 14. A similar view has been expressed in several decisions of the apex Court e.g. Uma Kant (Dr.) v. Dr. Bhikalal Jain [ (1992) 1 SCC 105 1992 SCC (L & S) 1 (1992) 19 ATC 35 JT (1991) 4 SC 75] (SCC para 9 JT para 9), Bhushan Uttam Khare v. B.J. Medical College [ (1992) 2 SCC 220 1992 SCC (L & S) 554 (1992) 20 ATC 223 JT (1992) SC 583] (SCC para 8:JT para 8), Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University [1986 Supp SCC 740 AIR 1986 SC 1448 ] (para 7), P.M. Bhargava v. UGC [ (2004) 6 SCC 661 ] (SCC para 13), J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik [(2000) SCC 59], Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya v. Dr. Rajkishore Tripathi [ (1977) 1 SCC 279 19/7 SCC (L & S) 121] (SCC para 12), Medical Council of India v. Sarang [ (2001) 8 SCC 427 ] (SCC para 6) and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1999) 9 SCC 573 : 2000 SCC (L & S) 185] (SCC para 6). 15. Rajkishore Tripathi [ (1977) 1 SCC 279 19/7 SCC (L & S) 121] (SCC para 12), Medical Council of India v. Sarang [ (2001) 8 SCC 427 ] (SCC para 6) and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1999) 9 SCC 573 : 2000 SCC (L & S) 185] (SCC para 6). 15. Having taken into consideration the above aspects, the apex Court has came to a definite finding in paragraphs 29 and 31 of the Rajbir singh Dalai (Dr. (supra), which reads as follows: 29. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated 5-3-1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, and a candidate who possesses Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. Thus, this is the view of uGe, which is an expert in academic matters) and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view. 31. We agree with Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel, that it is not appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts who are of the view that Political Science and Public Administration are interrelated and interchangeable subjects) and hence a candidate who possesses Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. We are told that a large number of persons having qualifications in the interchangeable/interrelated subjects have been appointed. Readers/Professors/Lecturers and are continuing as such in various colleges and universities in the State." 16. The apex Court has also distinguished the finding arrived at in Bhanu Prasad Panda (supra) in paragraph-33 to the following effect: 33. As regards the decision in Bhanu Prasad Panda (Dr.) v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University [ (2001) 8 SCC 532 : 2002 SCC (L & S) 14] we have carefully perused the same. In para 5 of the said judgment it has been observed: (SCC pp. 535-36) "5.... As regards the decision in Bhanu Prasad Panda (Dr.) v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University [ (2001) 8 SCC 532 : 2002 SCC (L & S) 14] we have carefully perused the same. In para 5 of the said judgment it has been observed: (SCC pp. 535-36) "5.... Though the Department concerned for which the appointment is to be made is that of (Political Science and Public Administration', the appointment with which we are concerned, is of Lecturer in Political Science and not Public Administration and subject-matter wise they are different and not one and the same. It is not in controversy that the posts of Lecturers in Public Administration and in Political Science are distinct and separate and on selection the appellant could not have been appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration...." A perusal of the above passage shows that the observation that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects was apparently given on a concession, because what has been stated therein is that "it is not in controversy" that the post of Lecturer in Public Administration and Political Science are distinct and separate. The use of the words "it is not in controversy" shows that a concession was made on the point by learned counsel for the respondent in that case. Hence the observation cannot be regarded as a precedent. Moreover, no reasoning has been given in the aforesaid passage (quoted above) as to why it has been held that Political Science and Public administration are distinct and separate subjects." 17. In View of the aforesaid position, Bhanu Prasad Panda's case has been distinguished by assigning reasons by the apex Court. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion has been taken in paragraphs 41 and 50 of the Rajbir Singh Dalai) (supra), which reads as follows: "41. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Bhanu Prasad Panda (Dr.) case ( (2001) 8 SCC 532 : 2002 SCC (L & S) 14] cannot be read as a Euclid's formula or treated as a precedent, since it has not given any reason for holding that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects, and since the aforesaid decision was given on a concession. 50. 50. Significantly, the decision in Bhanu Prasad Panda (Dr.) case [ (2001) 8 SCC 532 : 2002 SCC (L & S) 14) does not reflect the aforesaid position and does not also indicate the reason why and on what basis such a decision holding Public Administration and Political Science to be two distinct disciplines had been arrived at." 18. In view of such position, the case of Bhanu Prasad Panda (supra) has no application to the present context and as such, in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra) the position has been made clear that the subjects Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and treated to be one discipline as the Court cannot sit in appeal over opinion of the experts. 19. Review Petition (C) No. 59 of 2009 in Civil Appeal No. 4908 of 2008 was filed for review of the judgment passed in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra), but the same has been dismissed by the apex Court vide order dated 12.02.2009. In that view of the matter, the law laid down by the apex Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra) has been confirmed pursuant to dismissal of the review application filed by Dr. Raj Kumar Siwach. 20. In view of such position, this Court cannot take a different view than that of the decision taken by the apex Court in Rajbir Singh Dalai (supra) and comes to hold that the subjects or department of Public Administration is interchangeable to department of Political Science. Therefore, candidates having requisite qualification in both the subjects can apply for appointment of Lecturer, Reader and Professor of the respective subjects. 21. Coming to other questions, which have arisen for consideration in this case, that when the petitioner was found ineligible due to lack of experience, she approached this Court by filing writ petition and by virtue of the interim order she was allowed to appear in the examination and by virtue of subsequent order passed by this Court, result was published and it was found that the petitioner has not come out successful, she cannot turn around and challenge the selection of opposite parties No. 5 and 6. 22. 22. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. 23. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L & S) 644 : AIR 1986 SC 1043 ] it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 24. In Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1995 SC 1088 , the apex Court held that the Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to re-assess the relative merit of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners' successfully urge before the apex Court that they were given less marks though their performance was better. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as Court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee. 25. The apex Court in Manish Kumar Sahai (supra) in paragraph-16 held as follows: "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoiced jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoiced jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L & S) 712: (1995) 29 ATC 603; Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 68 ; Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 1005 ; Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 627 ; and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines (2009) 5 SCC 515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L & S) 57." 26. Similarly In Madras Institute of Development Studies (supra), the apex Court has also reiterated the same views and held that when a candidate consciously takes part in selection process, he subsequently cannot turn around and question very selection process and as such, decision in academic matters cannot be examined under writ jurisdiction in absence of mala fides, bias or arbitrariness etc. The selected candidates possessed requisite qualification, hence their appointment cannot be questioned. 27. In view of the fact and legal matrix discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner that Public Administration and Political Science are two distinct and separate subjects, cannot sustain in the eye of law in view of law laid down by the apex Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra) and as such, the petitioner having participated in the process of selection and having not come out successful, cannot turn around and challenge the same in the present case. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the case. 28. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order to costs.