ORDER : C.V. Karthikeyan, J. The writ petition had been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents, particularly, the second respondent, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, to select the petitioner to any of the posts advertised in notification No.7 of 2015, dated 30.04.2015, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had qualified herself with B.A. degree in academics and B.L. integrated degree, conferred by the Bharathidasan University/third respondent. 2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner had qualified herself with B.A. B.L. degree conferred by the Bharathidasan University. It was an integrated course of five years. On completion of three years, the University confers the degree of Bachelor of Arts and on completion of five years, grants the degree of Bachelor of Law - five years integrated course. It had been contended that on the basis of the three year degree, which the petitioner had obtained as a part of the integrated course, the petitioner had applied for the post of Revenue Assistant consequent to the notification issued by the second respondent on 30.04.2015 in notification No.7 of 2015. The petitioner contended that the basic qualification required was an undergraduate degree and therefore claiming that as she possessed that particular degree, she had applied for that particular post. It had been stated that her application was processed and she was permitted to write the preliminary examination and on succeeding in it, she was also called to write the main examinations. She also attended the oral test. Thereafter, she was called for counselling, wherein, the certificates were verified and at that particular point of time, she came to know that the respondents do not recognise a degree which was encompassed in the five years integrated course. It had been stated that the respondents had advertised for as many as 618 posts of Revenue Assistants and had filled up only 245 posts and that there were also further vacancies still available and that the petitioner should therefore be accommodated in any one of the vacancies. It had been stated that the respondents had advertised for as many as 618 posts of Revenue Assistants and had filled up only 245 posts and that there were also further vacancies still available and that the petitioner should therefore be accommodated in any one of the vacancies. Further contending that the rejection of her application or contemplation to reject the application on the ground that she had completed an integrated law course, the writ petition had been filed seeking a Mandamus as against the second respondent to take into consideration her qualification as B.A. in academics separately and B.L. integrated course in law and appoint her to the post of Revenue Assistant. 3.A Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the second respondent, who had contested the claim of the petitioner. It had been stated that the petitioner, in her application, had given her qualification as Bachelor of Oriental Learning (B.O.L.) and had also given the main subject as Law. It had been contended that since she had given the abbreviation B.O.L., her application was processed and she was permitted to write the examinations and also to attend the oral test and thereafter, when the certificates were examined, it was found that the petitioner had a professional degree and claiming that for the post of Revenue Assistant, possession of a professional degree would stand as a bar, it had been stated that the respondents are not in a position to offer employment to the petitioner even for the post of Revenue Assistant. An additional counter affidavit had thereafter been filed by the second respondent relating to the vacancy position and whether any posts were available to accommodate the petitioner. The details of the vacancy list was also given in the additional counter affidavit. 4.The learner Senior Counsel for the petitioner in her arguments pointed out that the petitioner had completed her integrated B.A. B.L. course and further pointed out that, in this connection, the third respondent/Bharathidasan University had issued two separate certificates. One signifying that the petitioner had completed her B.A. degree and the second, which was a comprehensive degree, stating that the petitioner had completed her B.L. integrated course. One signifying that the petitioner had completed her B.A. degree and the second, which was a comprehensive degree, stating that the petitioner had completed her B.L. integrated course. The learned Senior Counsel stated that the petitioner claims as a matter of right to be considered for appointment on the basis of the B.A. degree, which according to the learned Senior Counsel is separate from the integrated degree awarded to the petitioner herein. It is further contended that since there were vacancies available as evident from the additional counter affidavit and the statistics given in the additional counter affidavit, and that since the petitioner had obtained the qualified marks, the petitioner should be accommodated in the post of Revenue Assistant. 5.The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent however disputed the above contentions. The notification had been brought to the notice of this Court and pointed out that a degree in B.A., or B.Sc., (Other than in a Professional Subject) or B.Com., or B.O.L. of Annamalai University or B.B.A., of Madurai Kamarajar University or B.Litt., of Madras University or B.B.M., or B.Litt., of Bharathiyar University would be considered as eligible qualification to be considered for the post of Revenue Assistant. In this connection, the learned Standing Counsel further pointed out that in the application submitted by the petitioner, in the column qualification, the petitioner had stated that she had completed her S.S.L.C. on 15.06.1994 with the medium of instruction as Tamil and Higher Secondary Course on 27.04.2016 again with the medium of instruction as Tamil and her B.O.L. degree with the major subject of Law under the Bharathidasan University on 07.11.2001. The learned counsel stated that since the petitioner had given her qualification as B.O.L., without ascertaining the further details, her application should have been taken on record and the petitioner was permitted to write the examinations. The learned counsel pointed out that the expansion of B.O.L. as meant by the respondents was Bachelor of Oriental Learning and to be obtained from Annamalai University. The petitioner had not studied Bachelor of Oriental Learning and the petitioner had never stepped into Annamalai University. It is further contended on behalf of the second respondent that since the petitioner had completed her professional degree, which again is a bar, and since the petitioner had not completed B.A. degree independent of the Law degree, the petitioner cannot be considered for being appointed as Revenue Assistant. It is further contended on behalf of the second respondent that since the petitioner had completed her professional degree, which again is a bar, and since the petitioner had not completed B.A. degree independent of the Law degree, the petitioner cannot be considered for being appointed as Revenue Assistant. It had been stated that, it is for those reasons, the application of the petitioner had been rejected. 6.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced. 7.The second respondent had issued notification No.7 of 2015, on 30.04.2015, seeking applications through online mode for direct recruitment for the vacancies for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16, by way of Combined Civil Services Examination – II (Interview Posts), Group - II services. There were various posts which had been also advertised for which a combined examination was held. One among them is the post of Revenue Assistant in the Revenue Department in the various Revenue units in the State of Tamil Nadu. The qualification required to be considered as eligible for appointment to the said post had been stated supra. Among other qualifications, one is B.O.L. of Annamalai University. This course has nothing to do with Law. It deals exclusively with Oriental Learning. It is not available in Bharathidasan University. It is only taught in Annamalai University. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that the qualification attained by the petitioner is B.A. independently and B.L. integrated course. 8.It is not the case of the petitioner that she had walked out after completing B.A. three years course out of the integrated course. Since she had passed the examination in 1999, she was awarded B.A. degree in academic laws by the Bharathidasan University. It is part of the integrated law course. Earlier, the law graduates had to undergo an undergraduate law degree and thereafter, when the five years integrated law course was introduced, the subjects which were taught in the undergraduate course, to a little extent, where brought in as part of the curriculum of the integrated five years law course. It was meant to give a foundation for the law graduates as the law graduates necessarily should have knowledge of the fundamentals of B.A. course or B.Com., course or any other undergraduate course. It is not an independent undergraduate course as such. There is an option that a candidate could walk away from the course after completing three years. It was meant to give a foundation for the law graduates as the law graduates necessarily should have knowledge of the fundamentals of B.A. course or B.Com., course or any other undergraduate course. It is not an independent undergraduate course as such. There is an option that a candidate could walk away from the course after completing three years. But, it is a moot question whether the certificate issued therein would be recognized dehors a law degree, which is obtained after completing five years. It only signifies that the law graduates also have foundation in a few of the subjects, which are taught in an undergraduate course and it is not exclusive law integrated five years course. Some general knowledge is also required for every individual to practice the profession of law. It is for that intention in mind, the integrated five years course has been introduced, but, also introducing certain subjects, which are normally taught in undergraduate courses. The petitioner cannot argue that on the basis of the B.A. Degree, which was also granted, the petitioner would be permitted to do her Master of Arts, ignoring the B.L. Degree, which had been given to her. Petitioner would not be eligible to do M.A. Petitioner would be eligible to do M.L. or M.A., or M.Com or M.Sc. The B.A. degree certificate is given only to signify that, three year course had been undertaken by the petitioner and later the course extended to two further years culminating in grant of a five years integrated B.L. Degree. That degree which is given after completion of five years is a professional degree. A perusal of the notification shows that obtaining a professional degree would be a bar for being considered for the post of Revenue Assistant. Further more, the petitioner had filled up in the application B.O.L. as a degree and the main subject as law. It is not known how the petitioner had entered the abbreviation B.O.L. in the application form. It does not signify Bachelor of Oriental Law. It probably could signify Bachelor of Law, but again, the degree which the petitioner had been awarded is B.A.B.L. and not B.O.L. Petitioner had been awarded Bachelor of Arts and that cannot be reduced as B.O.L. by any stretch of imagination. It does not signify Bachelor of Oriental Law. It probably could signify Bachelor of Law, but again, the degree which the petitioner had been awarded is B.A.B.L. and not B.O.L. Petitioner had been awarded Bachelor of Arts and that cannot be reduced as B.O.L. by any stretch of imagination. 9.The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent had also placed stress on the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, wherein, in Annexure 9, with reference to Rule 38 (b) (ii), in Sub Rule 6, it had been provided that no person shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant by direct recruitment unless he possess a B.A. or B.Sc. degree (other than in a professional subject or B.Com degree). It would only indicate that B.A. and B.Sc. degree imply should be a stand alone degree and not a degree, which is of a further five years integrated degree of B.L. It should be a degree in which further studies should be possible from undergraduate courses moving on to a postgraduate course. Petitioner can never do a postgraduate course in Bachelor of Arts, on the basis of degree certificate given by the Bharathidasan University. But still, it is not known why the petitioner had filled up B.O.L. qualification when there is no certificate signifies that the petitioner had completed B.O.L. either in Bharathidasan University or in Anna University. Petitioner had been permitted to write examinations only on the basis of the application form filled up by her. But, that would not give her a right that the certificates subsequently given by her should be taken as sacrosanct and no questions could be raised by the second respondent. A step to verify the certificates is specifically given to verify whether the certificates as produced physically are in confirmation with the qualifications mentioned in the application form. 10.The next issue is with reference to vacancies. That is an issue on which the Court can never extend the jurisdiction. The second respondent had filed an additional counter affidavit and though it is stated that there are totally 14 vacancies, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent had stated that it would not be possible to accommodate the petitioner in any of the vacancies. It could not also be done since the petitioner had not qualified for consideration to appointment in one of those vacancies. It could not also be done since the petitioner had not qualified for consideration to appointment in one of those vacancies. 11.Viewed from any angle, the Court cannot issue a Mandamus as sought by the petitioner herein. The writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are also closed. 12.The petitioner may get an equivalent certificate with respect to the degree course independently granted by the Bharathidasan University and if that is obtained, lay a claim against the second respondent for the petitioner to be considered. If that claim is made, on production of the equivalent certificate, dehors the reasons given above, the second respondent may examine that particular application independently.