JUDGMENT : NIAS C.P., J. The writ petitioner challenges the selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) conducted by the first respondent, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). The writ petitioner and the 6 th respondent were candidates for selection to the single post of Assistant Professor (Physics), notified as per Ext.P1 Notification issued by the University on 17.8.2015. The said post was reserved for Ezhavas/Thiyyas/Billavas (ETB) and the petitioner, who belonged to the Thiyya community which is classified as OBC, applied in response to Ext.P1 Notification, as per Ext.P2 application dated 14.9.2015, before the last date fixed for the receipt of applications, namely, 17.9.2015. 2. The qualifications fixed for the post in question are as follows: i. Good academic record with 55% marks at the Master's Degree Level in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. ii. Besides, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. iii.Those candidates who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Regulations, 2009') shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor. iv.NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Master's Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted. 3. The qualifications for the above post are laid down in Regulation 4.4.1 in the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010, produced as Ext.P3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Regulations, 2010'). 4. The 6 th respondent applied for the selection, as per Ext.P21 application dated 16.9.2015. 4. The 6 th respondent applied for the selection, as per Ext.P21 application dated 16.9.2015. The selection and appointment of the 6 th respondent is questioned on the following grounds: i. That, the 6 th respondent did not claim that he was eligible for the exemption granted to those candidates who are or have been awarded Ph.D Degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009 and in the absence of a claim as stated above, the 6 th respondent was not qualified and therefore, the candidature of the 6 th respondent ought to have been rejected at the threshold itself. ii. That, the 6 th respondent did not produce an Equivalence Certificate of Ph.D. Degree Certificates awarded by the foreign university, namely, the University of Naples Federico II, as seen from Exts.P22 & P23, to that of the Ph.D. Degree in Physics awarded by the CUSAT or any of the Indian Universities established under a statute along with Ext.P21 application, under which the last date for applying was 17.9.2015, and going by the stipulation in the notification, late and defective applications ought to have been summarily rejected. iii.That, the 3 rd respondent-Selection Committee permitted the 6 th respondent, who was ineligible to take part in the selection process, without scrutiny of the eligibility of the 6 th respondent. iv.The absence of the claim of the 6 th respondent that he cleared the essential eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET and not producing any document to prove that Ext.P23 Ph.D. awarded to him from the foreign university is in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009, he was not eligible to be included in the selection process. v. The 'Course Work' in Physics for the award of Ph.D. being conducted by the 1 st respondent-University is entirely different and distinct from the course conducted by the foreign university and therefore, there was no room for declaration of 'equivalence' of a qualification obtained from another university as there can be a declaration of equivalence only between a qualification obtained from a body different from the one awarded by the concerned university. In other words, as the 1 st respondent-University does not conduct a Ph.D. course in “NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MATERIALS, SENSORS AND IMAGING- 27 th Cycle” there cannot be any question of declaration of 'equivalence' in respect of such a degree awarded by a statutory Indian university. In other words, as the 1 st respondent-University does not conduct a Ph.D. course in “NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MATERIALS, SENSORS AND IMAGING- 27 th Cycle” there cannot be any question of declaration of 'equivalence' in respect of such a degree awarded by a statutory Indian university. vi.That, the 6 th respondent obtained M.Tech in Laser and Electro-Optical Engineering from Anna University which is not a subject/specialisation relevant to the subject/specialisation of Physics and therefore, is outside the qualifications prescribed for the post in question. vii.That, Regulation 4.4.1 of Ext.P3 UGC Regulations, 2010 prescribes good academic record with at least 55% marks at the Master's Degree level “in the relevant subject” from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university would mean that Masters Degree must be closely connected or appropriate to the subject in question and as M.Tech Degree in Laser and Electro-Optical Engineering is not a relevant subject, the 6 th respondent could not have been considered for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics). That, neither the Selection Committee nor the University had pleaded that the 6 th respondent was treated as eligible on the basis that no NET was conducted for the subject of Laser and Electro-Optical Engineering as that was a relevant subject for the Master's Degree for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics), the selection of the 6 th respondent is clearly illegal as the 6 th respondent had admittedly not cleared the NET/SLET/SET test conducted for the Master's Degree Programme in Physics. viii.That, the 6 th respondent had produced Ext.P24 Equivalence Certificate dated 23.12.2015 of the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) after the last date of 17.9.2015 fixed for the receipt of applications and the certificate produced after the last date could not have been entertained. ix.That, Ext.P24 Equivalence Certificate only stated that the qualification is equated with a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in the corresponding field of an Indian university. “In the corresponding field of an Indian university” cannot mean that it is a certification that the 6 th respondent obtained Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009 for claiming exemption from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET. “In the corresponding field of an Indian university” cannot mean that it is a certification that the 6 th respondent obtained Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009 for claiming exemption from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET. That, Ext.P24 Equivalence Certificate issued by the AIU is not a certificate issued in the exercise of any statutory power as the said body is not one empowered with any such jurisdiction or competence to issue such certificate especially when Ext.P24 Equivalence Certificate is inconclusive. x. That, no material has been placed on record as to how a declaration of 'equivalence' could be granted without a detailed study more so when the Indian universities do not conduct any course or study for the award of Doctor of Philosophy Degree in “NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MATERIALS, SENSORS AND IMAGING”. There is nothing on record to show that the University of Naples Federico II is an accredited university in Italy. That, the Course Work allegedly undergone by the 6 th respondent for his Ph.D. Degree was not available with the 1 st respondent-University and therefore, Ext.R1(a) certificate issued on 27.4.2017, issued long after the cut-off date of 17.9.2015, was irrelevant and immaterial. xi.That, Annexure R5(b) judgment of this Court in University Grants Commission & Ors. v. Anand J. Illickan & Ors. (judgment dated 19.6.2015 in W.A.No. 847/2015) dealt with a case of appointment of an Associate Professor under the Management/Business Administration which had a statutory prescription of a Ph.D. recognized by the AICTE or declared equivalent by the AIU and in the absence of any such provision as regards the appointment of Assistant Professor (Physics), the said judgment will have no application in the instant case and the said judgment has to be held to be confined to Regulation 4.4.5 relating to Management/Business Administration and in no way a binding precedent as far as the question in issue, in this case, is concerned. xii.That, Ext.P25 notification can at best be held valid only for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government and not for the selection in question. xiii.The Selection Committee assessed the petitioner's and the 6 th respondent's inter se merit in violation of the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), which is to be followed in all selection processes as per the relevant regulations. xiii.The Selection Committee assessed the petitioner's and the 6 th respondent's inter se merit in violation of the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), which is to be followed in all selection processes as per the relevant regulations. That, for the above reasons, the selection and appointment of the 6 th respondent is patently illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, instructed by Sri.H.Vishnudas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of U.P. & Ors. [ (2020) 4 SCC 86 ] and Dr.B.L.Asawa v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [ AIR 1982 SC 933 ] for the proposition that equivalence of qualification cannot be left to candidates by their self-declaration and there has to be norms and guidelines, which may subserve the purpose and object of making equivalent qualification as eligibility for the post. When the issue is of the equivalence of a qualification, which is a mandatory qualification for a post, there should be yardsticks declaring equivalent or equivalence, which has to be declared by a body entrusted with such jurisdiction and who is competent to declare equivalence of a qualification. In the absence of any such declaration, it is for the employer to provide the methodology for determining the equivalent qualification. 6. The learned Senior counsel also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra and Ors. [ AIR 1959 SC 914 ] which explained the meaning of the word “opinion”. The learned Senior counsel cited the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [ (1997) 4 SCC 18 ] , State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt [ (1997) 6 SCC 574 ] , Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. [ (2011) 9 SCC 438 ] , State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar Misra [ (2017) 11 SCC 521 ], etc., which considered the relevance of the last date of application and that the documents produced after that could not have been entertained. The learned Senior counsel also relied on the judgment in Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. The learned Senior counsel also relied on the judgment in Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. [ (2001) 8 SCC 546 ] which dealt with the efficacy of the handbook regarding equivalence of foreign degrees by the Association of Indian Universities on the aspect that the Ph.D. had to be after the 2009 Regulations that too in the relevant subject. The learned Senior counsel also cited the judgments in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Manoj Sharma & Ors. [ (2018) 3 SCC 329 ] , Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University Represented by its Registrar & Ors. [ (2014) 3 SCC 767 ], Dr.Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University [ (2001) 8 SCC 532 ], about the Ph.D. in the relevant subject. 7. The learned Senior counsel also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Jagadish Balaram Bahira and Ors. [ (2017) 8 SCC 670 ], to contend that the procedure for selection, and the prescription of eligibility criteria has a significant public element in enabling the State to make choice amongst competing claims and that the rights of eligible persons are violated when a person who is not eligible for the post is selected and an illegality is perpetrated by bestowing benefits upon an imposter undeservingly. 8. Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University and Sri.Peter Jose Christo, learned counsel, argued that the writ petition itself was filed six months after the 6 th respondent joined duty and therefore, the same has to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. It is also their argument that as per Ext.P1 notification, the declaration of equivalence by the AIU is accepted and the same is not challenged by the writ petitioner. It is also pointed out that, though the last date of application was 17.9.2015, the interview was on 7.4.2017, all the documents were produced by the 6 th respondent prior to that. 9. The learned Standing Counsel also relies on Annexure R5(b) judgment of this Court which held that the declaration of equivalence by the AIU is valid. It is also pointed out that, though the last date of application was 17.9.2015, the interview was on 7.4.2017, all the documents were produced by the 6 th respondent prior to that. 9. The learned Standing Counsel also relies on Annexure R5(b) judgment of this Court which held that the declaration of equivalence by the AIU is valid. It is also argued that the marks given to the candidates are not challenged as the only challenge to the selection of the 6 th respondent is based on the Ph.D. he obtained from the foreign university which has been declared as a valid and an equivalent one by the AIU and also, by the employer-the University in question, the selection cannot be said to be bad in any manner. It is also argued that the decisions of academic bodies have to be respected in the above circumstances and there is no ground for any interference with the same. It is also pointed out that the 6 th respondent joined the service on 29.6.2017 and has been working since then. 10. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Navaneeth Krishna, learned counsel for the 6 th respondent, submits that the statements of the University, the Government of India and the UGC unequivocally state that the declaration of equivalence by the AIU was valid and acceptable, the only challenge raised in the writ petition on the acceptability of the Ph.D. of the 6 th respondent has to necessarily fail. It is also his argument, based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Praveen Kumar C.P. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 612, that the declaration of equivalence is only a declaration of the existing fact and not any fresh declaration. Once it is declared that the Ph.D. degree awarded to the 6 th respondent is equivalent, it must be taken that the degree is equivalent from the date when the degree was obtained and therefore, the argument that the same was produced after the cut-off date is not relevant. It is also argued that, in any event, the university concerned which conducted the selection themselves had issued an equivalency certificate and therefore, there cannot be any further doubt on the question of equivalence of qualification and no interference is warranted either on facts or on law. It is also argued that, in any event, the university concerned which conducted the selection themselves had issued an equivalency certificate and therefore, there cannot be any further doubt on the question of equivalence of qualification and no interference is warranted either on facts or on law. It is also pointed out that the 6 th respondent has joined and has been working since 2017 and that the writ petitioner has also obtained permanent employment at the University of Kerala. 11. The 7 th respondent-UGC had filed a counter affidavit which reads as follows: “5. It is submitted that the University of Naples, Federico II, Italy which issued exhibit P22 certificate, is a well recognized foreign University. The question is whether the PhD degree awarded by the University of Naples, Federico II, Italy as per Ext P22 can be treated as the one awarded under the UGC Regulation 2009. In this regard, the respectful submission of this respondent is that UGC Regulations does not speak about any PhD degree awarded by a foreign University. In such circumstances, the University Grants Commission in various cases themselves had referred that the equivalency with respect to foreign Universities should be acknowledged by the Association of Indian Universities and the same shall be treated as recognized for the purpose of employment and services under the Central Government.” 12. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Central Government which reads as follows: “4. The present Policy of according equivalence to the qualifications awarded by the foreign accredited/approved/recognized Universities is in terms of the following criteria/parameters: (a) The Degree is awarded by the foreign universities which is approved/recognized/ accredited in its own country: (b) The Degree is pursued by a student as a full time regular student on the campus of the University of its Origin or on the duly approved offshore campus of the University; (c) The minimum prescribed duration of the Degree programme of the study is at least the same as applicable in case of Indian universities; and (d) The minimum eligibility requirements for admission in the Degree programme of study is at least the same as applicable in case of Indian Universities. Upon fulfillment of the above criteria and on receiving the documents as mentioned in the application form, AIU accords equivalence to the qualifications awarded by the accredited/ approved/ recognized foreign universities.” 13. Upon fulfillment of the above criteria and on receiving the documents as mentioned in the application form, AIU accords equivalence to the qualifications awarded by the accredited/ approved/ recognized foreign universities.” 13. After hearing the learned counsel on all sides and after perusing the records, it is to be noted that the dispute in the instant case is essentially on the acceptability of the Ph.D. obtained by the 6 th respondent from the University of Naples Federico II. Ext.P1 notification clearly states that an equivalence certificate from the AIU is acceptable. Ext.P1 also speaks about an equivalence certificate to be issued by the 1 st respondent-University. These certificates are attacked by the petitioner on the ground that the AIU has no statutory recognition nor is any power conferred on them to issue such declaration of equivalence. 14. True, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, Annexure R5(b) judgment dealt with a case of appointment to management faculty wherein it was statutorily prescribed that an equivalence of the AIU is acceptable, while no similar stipulation is present in the relevant UGC Regulations as regards the appointment of Assistant Professor of Physics. However, it is to be noticed that Ext.P1 notification did recognise the acceptability of Ph.D. Degree declared as equivalent by the AIU. There is no express challenge as such to the said stipulation in Ext.P1 notification and the petitioner having participated in the selection process with the said stipulation cannot now turn around and challenge the same after the selection process. 15. The UGC which prescribes the qualification for the appointment in question also filed a statement, as extracted above, which shows the acceptability of the equivalence granted by the AIU. Under such circumstances, although Annexure R5(b) judgment pertains to a selection of management faculty, the conclusions stated therein cannot be said to be entirely inapplicable to the selection in question. The contention against the equivalence granted cannot be accepted in view of the statements filed on behalf of the Government of India, the University Grants Commission, the CUSAT and the Government Notification all of which recognise the acceptability and validity of the certificates issued by the AIU. 16. The contention against the equivalence granted cannot be accepted in view of the statements filed on behalf of the Government of India, the University Grants Commission, the CUSAT and the Government Notification all of which recognise the acceptability and validity of the certificates issued by the AIU. 16. As regards the contention that the documents were furnished by the 6 th respondent after the last date for submission, it has to be noted that a declaration of equivalence does not for the first time declare anything new but only declares what is already existing. The Government Notification (Ext.P25) dated 13.3.1995 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education) stating that those foreign qualifications that are recognized/equated by the AIU are treated as recognised for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government, cannot be discarded more so in the absence of any challenge to the same on the question of lack of power. True, the said Government Notification only dealt with employment to posts and services under the Central Government but it clarified that no separate order for the recognition of such foreign qualifications is needed to be issued. This certainly must be taken as an acceptance of the declaration of equivalence made by the AIU and that read along with the stand of the Central Government, the UGC, the University in question and Annexure R5(b) judgment, I am not inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the declaration by AIU is incompetent. 17. It is also to be noted that as per a public notice issued by the UGC on 8.6.2018, regarding equivalence of foreign Ph.D. Degree with Indian Ph.D. Degree as provided in the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D) Regulations , 2016, the UGC had decided that any foreign Ph.D. Degree that is held equivalent by the AIU by following its own procedure may also be treated as valid for exemption from NET for appointment as an Assistant Professor in Indian Universities and Colleges, thus, clarifying that the Universities can use the above provision for determining the validity of foreign Ph.D. Degrees for exemption from NET for appointment as Assistant Professor in Indian universities/colleges. In view of the above, there is no reason why an equivalence determined by AIU should be discarded. 18. In view of the above, there is no reason why an equivalence determined by AIU should be discarded. 18. The University's/employer’s position in this case is crucial as it is primarily for the employer to fix the qualifications and to be satisfied about the acceptability/equivalence of the qualifications prescribed. Ultimately, it is for the appointing authority to take a decision whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence as the employer must be held to be the best judge of whom should be appointed. The recruiting agency having been satisfied with the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate, this Court cannot vary or delete the conditions of eligibility found fit by the employer. The question of equivalence in such cases falls outside the domain of judicial review. The Courts with the power of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer or to interpret the conditions of the notification or the relevant regulations as courts will exercise restraint while determining equivalence between qualifications. The prerogative of the employer in such cases has to be normally respected. 19. With regard to the judgments cited by the learned Senior counsel on the question of equivalence, on the relevance of the last date of application and also, about the qualifications in the relevant subject, there cannot be any quarrel with the legal propositions laid down in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted above. 20. It is also to be noticed that no malafides are raised against the members of the Selection Committee nor are they impleaded as parties to the writ petition. Under such circumstances, no illegality let alone any malafides can be inferred in the selection under question. 21. It is trite that the interference of Court in the selection process or academic matters is confined only to cases of glaring illegalities or statutory violations. Courts should not interfere in administrative decisions unless there are indications of malafides, emphasizing that when a view is reasonable and plausible, the writ court should refrain from substituting its judgment. The selection committee's function is purely administrative, not judicial or adjudicatory. Courts should not interfere in administrative decisions unless there are indications of malafides, emphasizing that when a view is reasonable and plausible, the writ court should refrain from substituting its judgment. The selection committee's function is purely administrative, not judicial or adjudicatory. If no rules require the committee to provide reasons for their selection, they are not obligated to do so, and their recommendations can only be challenged on grounds of malafides or serious statutory violations. When the selection committee comprises subject experts, courts should be hesitant to intervene. Assessing candidates and applying relevant norms is solely the selection committee's responsibility, which should not be second-guessed by the Courts as it lacks the expertise to evaluate candidates' merits, which should be determined by the selection committee. Judicial review cannot extend the scope of qualifications or determine their equivalence; such matters are for the recruiting authority to determine more so when equivalence is a technical academic issue that must be explicitly resolved by academic bodies through their decisions. 22. I also notice that the 6 th respondent was selected and joined the service on 29.6.2017. It is also informed that the petitioner has also got permanent employment at the University of Kerala. In the above circumstances, since the University which carried out the selection did not object to the qualification of the 6 th respondent, and in view of my finding on the acceptability of the declaration of equivalence by the AIU, I do not see any reason to interfere with or set aside the appointment made in favour of the 6 th respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed.