1Writpetitionno.4996.

12

1.WRITPETITIONNO.4996OF2012

om

ba y

1. UniversityGrantsCommission, ThroughitsChairman,BahadurShah ZafarMarg,NewDelhi110002. 2. UniversityGrantsCommissionthrough TheHead,NETBureau,SouthCampus ofDelhiUniversity,BenitoJuarezMarg, NewDelbi110021. ..RESPONDENTS.

Mr.S.V.Purohit,Advocateforthepetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondents1and2.

2.

WritPetitionNo.6006of2012

AnitaN.Sable, agedaboutyears,Occupation:

NehaAnilBobde(Gadekar) Agedabout31years. Occu:ContributoryLecturer,PGTDLaw, RTMNU,Nagpur. R/o:53,Laxminagar,Nagpur22 Disctrict:Nagpur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:14 :::

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY, NAGPURBENCH,NAGPUR.

2Writpetitionno.4996.12

Versus.

2. TheCoOrdinator, UGCNETCentre,Nagpur RashtrasantTukdojiMaharajNagpur University,Nagpur. .....Respondents.

om

ba y

Mr.S.ZiaQuazi,Advocatesforpetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondentno.1. Mr.P.B.Patil,Advocateforrespondentno.2

3.

WritPetitionNo.609of2013

Himanshus/oShankarraoZaparde, Agedabout29years,Occ.Service, R/o:AtPostParatwada,Dist.Amravati. .versus.

1. UniversityGrantsCommission ThroughitsChairman,BahadurShah ZafarMarg,NewDelhi110002.

ig h

1. UniversityGrantsCommission NationalEducationalTestingBureau UniversityofDelhi,SouthCampus, BenitoJaurezMarg, NewDelhi110021 throughitsHead.

C ou
.....Petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:14 :::

...

Petitioner

rt

Advocate,R/o:ZingabaiTakli, Nagpur.

3Writpetitionno.4996.12

Mr.N.R.Saboo,Advocateforthepetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondents1and2.

ba y

2. SayyedTousifSayyedAther AgedMajor,Occu:Service, C/o:MohammadRafique,PlotNo.40A, SecondFloor,NearNuriMasjid,Rathod Layout,AnantNagar,Nagpur. .versus. 1. TheUniversityGrantsCommission, ThroughitsChairman, NationalEducationalTesting(Bureau) UniversityofDelhi(SouthCampus), BenitoJaurezMarg.Delhi. 2. UniversityGrantsCommission, NationalEducationalTestingCentre, ThroughitsCoordinator, RashtraSantTukdojiMaharajNagpur University,Nagpur.

1. AshviniAnantKalve, AgedMajor,Occu:Service, R/o:254,Alok,CanalRoad, Dharampeth,Nagpur440010.

ig h
...Petitioners
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:14 :::

4.

WritPetitionNo.983of2013

om

C ou

2. UniversityGrantsCommission throughTheHead,NETBureau, SouthCampusofDelhiUniversity, BenitoJuarezMarg,NewDelhi110021.

...Respondents

rt

4Writpetitionno.4996.12

Mr.S.S.Sanyal,Advocatesforpetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondents1and2.

5.

WritPetitionNo.1030of2013.

Parulw/oShashankChaubey, A/o33years,Occupation:Lecturer, R/o:144SatheMarg,Dhantoli,Nagpur. .versus.

ig h

om

1. UniversityGrantsCommission NationalEducationalTestingBureau UniversityofDelhi,SouthCampus, BenitoJaurezMarg, NewDelhi110021, throughitsHead.

ba y

2. TheCoordinator, UGCNETCentre,NagpurRashtrasant TukdojiMaharajNagpur University,Nagpur. .....Respondents. Ms.NeerjaChaubey,Advocateforthepetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondentno.1.

C ou

..Respondents.

...Petitioner.

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:14 :::

rt

3. RashtraSantTukdojiMaharajNagpur University,Nagpur,throughitsRegistrar.

5Writpetitionno.4996.12

.versus.

om

2. TheCoordinator, UGCNETCentre,Nagpur RashtrasantTukdojiMaharajNagpur University,Nagpur. .....Respondents Ms.NeerjaChaubey,Advocateforpetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondentno.1 Mr.P.B.Patil,Advocateforrespondentno.2

ba y

7.

WritPetitionNo.1715of2013 . 1. JitendraWamanJambhule, Agedabout28years, ResidentofFattepuraWardNo.3, PanchsheelSquare,NearVeluren Budhavihar,Chandrapur442402.

1. UniversityGrantsCommission NationalEducationalTestingBureau UniversityofDelhi,SouthCampus, BenitoJaurezMarg, NewDelhi110021,throughitsHead.

ig h

C ou

MeenaDattatrayKohok, A/o47years,Occupation:Lecturer, R/o:B6SitaSankulII OppositeAakarNagar,KatolRoad,Nagpur.

...Petitioner.

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

6.

WritPetitionNo.1156of2013 .

6Writpetitionno.4996.12

4. NiharSureshDahake, Agedabout31years, residentofPlotNo.12,RajendraNagar, KDKCollegeRoad,Nandanwan, Nagpur440009. 5. ManoharBansilalPatil, Agedabout36years, ResidentofC/oShriVitthalraoSatpute, BehindMahadeoTemple,KillaWard, Ballarpur442701. 6. SachinTulshiramBadwaik, Agedabout33years, ResidentofPlotNo.8, Kashinagar,RameshwariRoad, PostBhagwanNagar,Nagpur440027. .versus. 1. UniversityGrantsCommission, ThroughitsChairman, BahadurShahZafarMarg, NewDelhi110002.

om

ba y

ig h

3. KishorNanajiMahajan Agedabout27years, ResidentofatPostParda,Tahsil P.O.Samudrapur,District:Wardha442305.

C ou
....Petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

2. VinodWasudeoDongarwar, Agedabout28years, ResidentofBelanwadi, Post:Nandgaon,TahsilSindewahi District:Chandrapur441223.

rt

7Writpetitionno.4996.12

...Respondents. Mr.A.A.Naik,Advocateforthepetitioners. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondents. 8. WritPetitionNo.1716of2013 1. SunilMahadeoGabhane, Agedabout26years, ResidentofatPostSonapur, PostGovindpur,TahsilNagbhid, District:Chandrapur441221.

om

ba y

2. NagsenJaipalShambharkar, Agedabout27years, ResidentofGadgaon,Post:Pimpalneri, TahsilChimur,District:Chandrapur. 3. TulsidasHarimanZade, Agedabout38years, ResidentofatPostNimgaon, TahsilSaoli,District:Chandrapur. 4. ChandrashekharNamdeoGaurkar, Agedabout31years, ResidentofTadobaRoad,Urjanagar, KondhiWardNo.5,Chandrapur TahsilandDistrict:Chandrapur.

ig h
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

C ou

2. UniversityGrantsCommission, ThroughtheHead,NETBureau, SouthCampusofDelhiUniversity, BenitoJuarezMarg,NewDelhi110021.

rt

8Writpetitionno.4996.12

6. SachinBhauraoBodhane, Agedabout29years, ResidentofC/o:PrakashAswale,Killaward, KunbiSociety,Bhadravai,District:Chandrapur. .versus.

1. UniversityGrantsCommission, ThroughitsChairman, BahadurShahZafarMarg, NewDelhi110002.

om

ba y

....Respondents. Mr.A.A.Naik,Advocateforpetitioners. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondents. 9. WritPetitionNo.1776of2013 . 1. NavalDaulatraoPatil, Age30years.OccuStudent, R/oJutapani,Post:Bijudhawadi, Tq.Dharni,Dist:Amravati.

2. UniversityGrantsCommission, throughtheHead,NETBureau, SouthCampusofDelhiUniversity, BenitoJuarezMarg,NewDelhi110021.

ig h

C ou
....Petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

5. AvinashDiwakarBhurase, Agedabout25years, ResidentofAtpostSonapur, TahsilSaoli,District:Chandrapur441225.

rt

9Writpetitionno.4996.12

3. YogendraBalkrushnaBarabde, Age33yrs.,OccuService, R/oKumbhargaon, Tq.AnjangaonSurji,Dist.Amravati.

om

ba y

5. ManjushaSudhirThakhare, Age34years,OccService R/oPrabhatColony,ShilangaonRoad, Amravati,Tq.AndDist.Amravati. 6. AmitChandrakantRonghe, Age28yrs.,OccService, R/oC/oN.K.Puri,AshirwadColony, ShegaonRoad,Amravati,Tq.AndDist.Amravati. 7. SureshDevidasGawli, Age31yrs.,OccService, R/oDattaNagar,Kandli,Paratwada, Dist.Amravati. 8. PratibhaHaridasKakade, Age25yrs.,Occservice Sarmaspura,Achalpur,Tq.Achalpur, Dist.Amravati.

4. DarshanaRatnakarChaudhary Age36yrs.,OccService, R/oV.M.V.RoadNearVitthalMandir, Amravati,Tq.andDist.Amravati.

ig h

C ou
...Petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

2. NikhilGovardhanJoshi, Age30years.,Occu:Education, R/o:IndraprasthaColony, ShegaonRoad,Amravati.

rt

10Writpetitionno.4996.12

om

....Respondents. Mr.P.S.Patil,Advocateforthepetitioners. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondentno.1. 10. WritPetitionNo.1783of2013 1. KavitaShankarraoVaidya. 2. HargovindChikhaluTembhare. (BoththePetitionersarepermanentresidents 45,CivilLines,Nagpur.)........Petitioners. .versus. UniversityGrantsCommission, ThroughitsChairman, BahadurshahaZafarMarg, NewDelhi440002. ......Respondent.

3. NationalEducationalTesting(NET)Bureau throughitsHead,SouthCampus,Universityof Delhi,JuarezMarg,NewDelhi.

ba y

ig h

2. TheCocoordinatorUGC NationalEligibilityTestforJunior FellowshipandEligibilityforLectureship June2012. C/oOfficeAtUniversityofGrants Commission,NewDelhi.

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

1. UniversityGrantsCommission, ThroughitsSecretary,BahadurShah JafarMarg,NewDelhi.

rt

.versus.

11Writpetitionno.4996.12

11.

WritPetitionNo.5049of2012

om

ba y

1. UniversityGrantsCommission, NationalEducationalTestingBureau UniversityofDelhi,SouthCampus, BenitoJaurezMarg, NewDelhi110021 ThroughitsHead.

...Respondents. Mr.Z.A.Haq,Advocatesforthepetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondentno.1 Mr.P.B.Patil,Advocateforrespondentno.2.

2. TheCoordinator, UGCNETCentre,Nagpur RashtrasantTukdojiMaharajNagpur University,Nagpur.

ig h

NilofarD/oZafarKhan, agedabout38years,Occupation:Advocate, R/o:204,SamajBhushanSociety, AyyappaNagar,Nagpur. .....Petitioner. Versus.

C ou

Mr.P.P.Thakare,Advocateforthepetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondent.

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

12Writpetitionno.4996.12

SayaleeShekharSurjuse, Agedabout27years,R/o:102,Gokul Apartments,80,NawabLane,Gokulpeth Nagpur440010. ....Petitioner. .versus. 1. UniversityGrantsCommission NationalEducationalTestingBureau UniversityofDelhi,SouthCampus, BenitoJaurezMarg,NewDelhi110021. ThroughitsHead. 2. TheCoordinator UGCNETCentre,Nagpur RashtrasantTukdojiMaharajNagpur University,Nagpur. 3. RTMNagpurUniversity,Nagpur ThroughitsRegistrar,Nagpur Dist.Nagpur.

om

ba y

...Respondents. MsT.H.Udeshi,Advocateforthepetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondentno.1 Mr.P.V.Thakare,Advocateforrespondentno.2 Mr.P.B.Patil,Advocateforrespondentno.3. 13. WritPetitionNo.5135of2012.

1. GaneshRamdasGadekar, R/o:PlotNo.61,Dr.PunjabraoDeshmukh

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

12.

WritPetitionNo.5069of2012

13Writpetitionno.4996.12

3. BaliramManikraoBhange, R/o:ChichghareLayout,ByepassRoad, Umrer,Dist:Nagpur441203. 4. SachinTrimbakraoHunge, R/o:MangalwariPeth,StationRoad, Umrer,Distt.Nagpur441203. 5. ManojShankarraoMadavi GurudeoNagar,PostalColony, Yavatmal445002.

om

ba y

6. Yogitaw/oGaneshGujar, R/o:GandhiChowk,BehindLokmatOffice, Yavatmal445001. 7. VasantaSitaramWanjari DekateChowkBudhwariPeth,Umrer, Dist.Nagpur441203. 8. SnehaAshokGajghate, GiradkarLayout,ByepassRoad,Umrer, Dist.Nagpur441203. 9. KailashVitthalraoBisandre, AniketCollegeofSocialWorkRamNagar, Wardha. 10.BaburaoNamdeoraoKhelkar C/oG.S.Kamble,NagariBankColony,
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

ig h

C ou

2. SanjayKashinathSontakke, R/o:PlotNo.16,MahalaxmiNagar02 ManewadaRoad,Nagpur440024.

rt

Colony,ArviRoad,Wardha.

14Writpetitionno.4996.12

13.Mrs.SujataSuryabhanGajbhiye, C/oYuvrajRamtekeSatkarNagar, NagpurRoad,Bhandara. ....Petitioners. .versus.

om

ba y

1. UnionofIndia, MinistryofHumanResourceDevelopment, ThroughitsSecretary,LibraryAvenuePusa, NewDelhi110012.

2. UniversityGrantsCommission throughitsChairman BahadurshahaZafarMarg, NewDelhi440002. ....Respondents. Mr.P.P.Thakare,Advocateforthepetitioners. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondents1and2.

14.

WritPetitionNo.5142of2012 .

AnjaliOmprakashKothari

ig h

12.NishantAshokChikate, C/o:DineshR.Dongre, AtVikramShilaNagar,WardNo.1, Sindhi(M),Wardha.

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

11.RupeshRambhauKuchewar, SahakarNagar,NearSaiNagar, WardNo.19,Wardha.

rt

Wardha.

15Writpetitionno.4996.12

.versus.

UniversityGrantsCommission NationalEducationalTestingBureau UniversityofDelhi,SouthCampus, BenitoJaurezMarg,NewDelhi110021. ThroughitsHead. ...Respondent. MsT.H.Udeshi,Advocateforthepetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondent.

om

ba y

15.

WritPetitionNo.6005of2012

1. KrishnaFulchandMeshram 2. VinodkumarWalmikGedam 3. UrvilVinubhaiPatel 4. RajeshZanaklalGautam 5. LinaChhaganKumbhalwar 6. RajendrakumarLaljiNikose 7. ShushmaRadheshyamNagpure 8. HirwantaBhayyalalGarade

ig h

C ou
...Petitioner.

agedabout26years,R/oB5Uday Coop.HousingSociety,NelsonSquare Chaoni,Nagpur440013.

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

16Writpetitionno.4996.12

11.PremlalDhuranlalBasene (Petitionernos.1to11arepermanentresidents ofGondia,Dist.Gondia.TathyaTopeNagar PlotNo.11).

13.MangeshBhakrujiMeshram (Petitionernos.12and13arepermanentresidents ofNagpur,Dist.Nagpur,CivilLineNagpur PlotNo.1.) ....Petitioners. .versus.

om

ba y

1. UnionofIndia, MinistryofHumanResource Development,ThroughitsSecretary, LibraryAvenuePusa,NewDelhi110012.

2. UniversityGrantsCommission, throughitsChairman, BahadurshahaZafarMarg,NewDelhi440002. ....Respondents. Mr.P.P.Thakare,Advocateforthepetitioners. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondents1and2.

16.

WritPetitionNo.6269of2012

1. JyotsnaPandurangiTimande.

ig h

12.NirajsinghFulchandYadav

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

10.NilkanthaRamchandraBhendarkar

rt

9. RakeshKisanlalBambhare

17Writpetitionno.4996.12

2. KalyaniHemantManmode. 3. NilimaBhauraoRindhe. 4. TaxshilaB.Kamble.

5. VikrantAnntramDhamgaye.

7. SachinDeodasJambhulkar 8. BhagwatYuvrajShende (Petitionernos.5to8arepermanentresidents ofC/oatDahegaon,P.O.Mahagaon(Devi) Tah.Mohadi,Dist.Bhandara). .....Petitioners. .versus. 1. UnionofIndia, MinistryofHumanResource Development,ThroughitsSecretary, LibraryAvenuePusa,NewDelhi110012. 2. UniversityGrantsCommission, throughitsChairman, BahadurshahaZafarMarg,NewDelhi440002. ....Respondents.

om

ba y

6. MadhukarSahasramGomase.

ig h

(Petitionerno.1to4areresidentsof C/oNileshMahakalkar,49,NewJagrutiColony, KatolRoad,Nagpur).

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

18Writpetitionno.4996.12

17.

WritPetitionNo.5795of2012

om

ba y

1. UniversityGrantsCommission NationalEducationalTestingBureau UniversityofDelhi,SouthCampus, BenitoJaurezMarg,NewDelhi110021 ThroughitsHead. 2. TheCoordinator, UGCNETCentre,Nagpur RashtrasantTukdojiMaharajNagpur University,Nagpur.

3. RTMNagpurUniversity,Nagpur ThroughitsRegistrar, Nagpur,Dist.Nagpur. ....Respondents. Ms.T.H.Udeshi,Advocateforpetitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra,Advocateforrespondentno.1. Mr.P.B.Patil,Advocateforrespondentnos.2and3.

ig h

MangalaDurgadasBansod agedabout40years,R/oSwayamApartments, RajwadaRoad,AtpostTaqAheri. Dist.Gadchiroli442705. .....Petitioner. .versus.

C ou

Mr.P.P.Thakare,Advocateforthepetitioners. Mr.S.K.Mishra,ASGIforrespondents.

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

19Writpetitionno.4996.12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the

stage.

2. parties.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective

om

ba y

3.

These petitions, by aspiring University Teachers, question

theresult of NationalEligibilityTestconductedbytherespondent University Grants Commission (for short UGC) in June 2012 by prescribingqualifyingcriteriaafterthetestwasconducted.Theyseek appropriatewrittodeclarethatchangeofqualifyingcriteriareflectedin theNotificationdated19 September,2012isarbitraryandillegaland alsoseekstrikingdowntheauthorityoftherespondentUGCtodecide
th

ig h

parties, these petitions were taken up for final disposal at admission

C ou

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN&PRASANNAB.VARALE,JJ DATEOFRESERVINGJUDGMENT:16.04.2013 DATEOFPRONOUNCEMENT:29.04.2013 JUDGMENT(PERR.C.CHAVAN,J)

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

20Writpetitionno.4996.12

4. Thefacts,whicharematerialfordecidingthesepetitionsare asunder: InMarch,2012,theUGCissuedaNotificationannouncing

Notification issued in March, 2012, the minimum marks, which the

under:

ba y

CATEGORYMinimumMarks(%)tobeobtained. PAPERIPAPERIIPAPERIII GENERAL 40(40% 40(40%) 35(35%) 35(35%) 75(50%) 67.5(45%) roundedoffto68 60(40%) OBC (Non 35(35%) creamylayer) PH/VH/SC/ST 35(35%)

om

The petitioners applied for appearing for the test for eligibility for lectureship.Theygavethetestconductedon24 June,2012.
th

5.

The petitioners claim that they scored more than the

minimummarksprescribedabove. However,whentheresultsofthe

candidatesweresupposedtoobtaininpapersI,IIandIII,weretobeas

ig h

holding of National Eligibility Test on 24 June, 2012. As per the

C ou
th

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

suchcriteriaaftertheexaminationandbeforethedeclarationofresult.

21Writpetitionno.4996.12

weredeclaredon18 September,2012,theUGCreleasedthePress Notestatingthatinadditiontotheminimummarkswhichthecandidates were supposed to obtain individually in three papers, the candidates wererequiredtoobtainaggregatemarksof65%forGeneralCategory, 60% for OBC (Noncreamy layer) and 55% for SC/ST/persons with disabilities. Thereafter, the UGC seems to have published supplementary results on 12.11.2012, in which too, the petitioners

th

om

ba y

namesdidnotfigure.Thereafterthedatesfornextexaminationswere announcedbytheUGC.

6.

ThepetitionersquestiontheactionoftheUGContheground

thatitwasnotopentotheUGCtochangethequalifyingcriteriaafter the examination was over. The petitioners also state that the candidates,whohadsecuredlessthantheprescribedaggregatemarks, werealsodeclaredtohavepassedinthesupplementaryresults,though similarbenefitwasnotextendedtothepetitioners.Thiswaspossibly

ig h

C ou

namesmissingfromthelistofsuccessfulcandidates.Aftertheresults

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

examinationwereannouncedbytheUGC,thepetitionersfoundtheir

22Writpetitionno.4996.12

prescribedaggregate marks,thecandidates,whofiguredamong top 7%ofallthecandidateswhoappearedintheNETinthe particular subject, should also be considered eligible and having qualified. It seemsthatthecandidateswhohadsecuredlessthantheprescribed aggregatemarksbutwereinthe7%bracketweredeclaredasqualified.

7.

According to the UGC, which has filed an affidavit in Writ

om

ba y

PetitionNo.4996/2012,whichthelearnedcounselwantstobereadin all other petitions, the UGC in its Notification for June, 2012 Examination,stipulatedtheminimummarkswhichthecandidateswere required to obtain in 3 papers separately. The Notification also stipulated that only those candidates, who obtained such minimum marks,weretobeconsideredforfinalpreparationoftheresultandthe Notification unmistakably stated that However, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and eligibility for lectureshipshallbedecidedbytheUGCbeforedeclarationoftheresult.

H
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

ig h

C ou

Member Committee that in addition to the candidates who secured

rt

done by the UGC after considering the recommendations of a Four

23Writpetitionno.4996.12

whichthecandidateswererequiredtoobtainineachpaperhadtobe distinguished from the qualifying criteria which the UGC was to separatelydecide.Itwassubmittedthatthepetitioners,havingclearly understood the terms and conditions of the examination and having appeared at the examination without protest, could not question the declarationoftheresultasunfair.TheUGCexplainedthatitconstitutes aModerationCommitteeofthesenioracademiciansforfinalizingthe

om

ba y

qualifying criteria and the final cutoff is fixed generally before declarationoftheresult.ItwaspointedoutthattheCommitteeofsenior academiciansmetformoderatingtheresultofJune,2012examination and recommended that the candidates would be required to obtain minimum qualifying aggregate percentage of 65%, 60% and 55% in respectofthethreecategoriesofthecandidates. TheUGCcandidly states that it received some representations and then set up a Four Member Expert Committee to examine the representations. The Committee found that uniform high cutoff marks across various

ig h

C ou

stipulationintheNotification.Itwassubmittedthattheminimummarks

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

The UGC claimed to have carried out this activity in view of the

24Writpetitionno.4996.12

Committeenotedthatuniformcutoffmarksputthecandidatesinsome subjectstoadisadvantageand,therefore,theCommitteesuggestedthe correctionwherebycandidates,whofiguredamongthetop7%ofthe candidates whoappeared forthe NET ineach discipline, wouldalso qualifysubjecttotheirhavingsecuredminimumrequiredscoreineach ofthethreepapers.Accordingly,theresultwasmoderatedand15178 additionalcandidatesweredeclaredtohave qualifiedon12.11.2012.

om

ba y

TheUGCrefutedtheallegationsaboutarbitrarinessordiscrimination. TheUGCcontendedthatinsuchmatterstheCourtsshouldleavethe decisiontoexpertswhoaremorefamiliarwiththeacademicissuesand problems they face rather than the courts generally can be, and, therefore,soughtdismissalofthepetitions.Thelearnedcounselforthe UGC submitted that the prayers sought could not be entertained, particularlyinthelightofthefactthatthepetitionerssoughttochallenge thedecisiontoqualify7%oftoprankersineachsubjectwithoutjoining asrespondentsthosewhowerebenefitedbythisdecision.

ig h

C ou

whopassedvariedhugelyfrom1%to30%forvarioussubjects.The

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

disciplineswasnotpropersinceitnotedthattheproportionofstudents

25Writpetitionno.4996.12

shouldbedeclaredasnotqualified. Thepetitionersseekthatsimilar benefits could be extended to them by enlarging this scope of relaxation.Therefore,sincenothing totheprejudiceofthecandidates who are declared to have qualified subsequently by result dated 12.11.2012issought,thisobjectiontothetenabilityofthepetitionson the ground that those candidates have not been joined, has to be rejected.

om

ba y

9.

Thistakesustothecrucialquestion,whethertherespondent

UGCwasjustifiedinprescribingrequirementtoobtain65%,60%and 55% aggregate marks as qualifying criterion after candidates had appearedfortheexamination.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitioners submit that similar petitions had been filed before the High Court of KerlaandbyJudgmentdated17.12.2012thelearnedSingleJudgeof KerlaHighCurthasallowedthepetitionsandquashedtheproceedings fixingcategorywise qualifyingcriteriaforLectureshipeligibility. The

ig h

C ou

petitioners, it is not that the petitioners seek that those candidates

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

8.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

26Writpetitionno.4996.12

theNETanddirectedappropriatefollowupaction.Thelearnedcounsel forUGCsubmittedthatthisJudgmenthasbeensubjectedtointracourt appealinKerlaHighCourtandtheresultthereofisawaited.Hefurther submittedthatsinceitisaJudgmentbyaSingleJudgeofanotherHigh Court, this Division Bench need not feel itself bound by the said Judgment. He submitted that conclusions drawn by the Kerla High Court,intheviewofUGC,arenotcorrectand,therefore,thisCourtmay

om

ba y

nottoethatline.

10.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted, mainly

relyingonthecausationintheJudgmentoftheKerlaHighCourt,that suchchangeofthecriteriaaftertheprocessbeginsisnotpermissible.

11.

ThelearnedcounselfortheUGC,ontheotherhand,relied

on the number of Judgments to support its contention that once the candidatestakepartintheselectionprocesswithoutdemur,theywould

ig h

C ou

theminimumprescribedmarksseparatelyinthreepapers,hadcleared

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

learnedSingleJudgedeclaredthatallthepetitioners,whohadobtained

27Writpetitionno.4996.12

inJune,2012clearlystipulatedthatinadditiontotheminimummarks whichthecandidatesweresupposedtoobtainindividuallyineachof the three papers, the candidates were to be subjected to some qualifyingcriteriabeforedeclarationoftheresult. Hepointedoutthat theNotification,afterprescribingminimummarksineachofthethree papersstipulatesthat,onlysuchcandidates,whoobtaintheminimum requiredmarksineachpaper,separately,asmentionedabove,would

om

ba y

be considered for the final preparation of result. However, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureship shall be decided by the UGC before declaration of the result.

12.

Therefore,thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmitted

thatthecandidatesknewthattheirobtainingminimumrequiredmarksin eachofthethreepapersseparatelyonlyenabledthemtobeconsidered forfinalpreparationoftheresultandthatthefinalqualifyingcriteriawere

ig h

C ou

adversetothem.HesubmittedthattheNotificationforexaminationheld

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

notbeentitledtochallengetheprocess,iftheresultoftheprocessis

28Writpetitionno.4996.12

sufficientnoticethattheirobtainingminimumpassingmarksineachof thethreepapersindividuallydidnotautomaticallymakethemeligible forLectureship.ThelearnedcounselforUGCreliedupontheJudgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar ShuklaandothersreportedinAIR1986SupremeCourt,1043. Inthat case the Court was considering the question whether a competitive examination for recruitment held according to 1950 Rules was

om

ba y

unauthorized as it should have been held in accordance with 1947 Rulesasamendedby1969Rules. Theexaminationitselfhadbeen heldinSeptember,1981.Inparano.23oftheJudgment,theSupreme Courtobservedthatpetitionercouldnotbegrantedanyreliefbecause he appeared for the examination without any protest and had filed petitiononly afterhehadrealizedthatthewouldnotsucceedinthe examination. 13. InMadanLalandothers.vs.StateofJammuandKashmir

ig h

C ou

Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the candidates had

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

to be determined by the UGC before the declaration of the result.

29Writpetitionno.4996.12

MunsiffsinJammuandKashmir.Themaincontentionofthepetitioners wasthatvivevocetestwassomanipulatedbyincreasingtheirmarksin vivevocethatonlythepreferredcandidateswerepermittedtogetinthe selectlist. FollowingtheJudgmentin OmPrakashShukla, the Court reiterated that the result of an interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate, who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be

om

ba y

unsuccessful.

14.

ADivisionBenchofthisCourtin SonaliRamkrishnaBayani

vs.StateofMaharashtraandothers,reportedin2003(Supp.2)Bombay C.R.,607tookasimilarviewfollowingtheJudgmentinMadanLal.In ChandraPrakashTiwariandothersvs.ShakuntalaShuklaandothers, reported in (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 127 relying on the JudgmentsinOmPrakashShuklaandMadanLal,theSupremeCourt concludedthatthelawwaswellsettledthatintheeventthecandidate

ig h

C ou

Courtwasconsideringthechallengetotheprocessofrecruitmentof

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

andothers,reportedinAIR1995SupremeCourt,1088(1),theSupreme

30Writpetitionno.4996.12

subsequentlycontendthattheprocessofinterviewwasunfairorthere was some lacunaintheprocess.Similarview hasbeentakenvery recentlybyaDivisionBenchofthisCourtin SwatiR.Khinvasara vs. StateofMaharashtraandothers,reportedin 2012(1)Mh.L.J.,482. The learned counsel for the UGC, therefore, submitted that the petitioners,havingappearedatthetestknowingfullwellthatqualifying criteriaweretobefixedbeforethedeclarationoftheresult,couldnot

om

ba y

questionthecriteriasubsequentlyfixed.

15.

Thelearnedcounselforthepetitioners,ontheotherhand,

submitted that such change of the criteria after the process has commenced, has not been approved by the Supreme Court. In our view,thequestionastowhetherthecriteriacouldbechangedafterthe processbeganmaynotbedecisiveofthematter.Thequestionhereis aboutthepurposeforwhichtheexaminationisconductedbytheUGC. It is nobodys case that purpose of conducting the examination is to

ig h

C ou

oftheinterviewisnot palatabletohim,hecannotturnaroundand

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

appearsattheinterviewandparticipatesthereinonlybecausetheresult

31Writpetitionno.4996.12

teaching across the country. The question of validity of the UGC Regulationsaboutqualificationsrequiredofapersontobeappointedto theteachingstaffofUniversitiesandInstitutions,notifiedon19.9.1991, hadbeenraisedbyapetitionerbeforetheDelhiHighCourt.TheDelhi HighCourtruledthatRegulationwasvalidandmandatory andDelhi Universitywasobligedtocomplytherewith.TheDelhiUniversityfiled anappealwhichcametobedecidedbytheJudgmentoftheSupreme

om

ba y

CourtinUniversityofDelhivs.RajSinghandothersreportedin1994 Supp.(3)SupremeCourtCases,516. TheSupremeCourtnotedthat theRegulationswhichweresoughttobechallengedhadbeenmadein exerciseofpowerconferredbySection26(1)(e)r/wSection14ofthe UGCAct,1956.ThegenesisoftheRegulationswerethenconsidered by the Supreme Court in para nos.8 and 9 of the Judgment in the followingwords. 8............................... It was recognized that the standards of performance varied from University to

ig h

C ou

NationalEligibilityTestinordertohaveuniformityinthestandardsof

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

select the candidates for appointment. The UGC had prescribed

32Writpetitionno.4996.12

exactingwerelessgenerouswiththeirscores. Away hadtobefoundtoensurenotonlythatjusticewasdone but also that it appeared to be done. Thereafter, in consideringanAllIndiaMeritTest,theReportsaidthatit had to be ensured that every citizen aspiring to be a

intermsofanationalyardstick..................Thereport, therefore, recommended that the UGC should

least in grade B+ on a seven point scale in its

om

ba y

Regulation laying down the minimum qualifications of teachersandthatthisshouldcomeintoforcewithintwo years.

9: .......................... In order to ensure the quality of new entrants to the teaching profession, the Mehrotra Committeerecommendedthatallaspirantsforthepost oflecturerinaUniversityorcollegeshouldhavepassed anationalqualifyingexamination.Thisrecommendation, it said, was in line with the recommendation of the NationalCommissiononTeachersII.Suchatestwould havethemeritofremovingdisparitiesin standardsof examination at the Masters level between different Universities.TheMehrotraCommitteehopedthatbythis

incorporatethepassingofoneofthenationaltestsat

ig h

teacheratthetertiarylevel,thatis,alecturer,qualified

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

University,andthatUniversitieswhichwerealittlemore

33Writpetitionno.4996.12

eligibilityzoneforrecruitmentwouldbecomewider.The proposedexaminationwastobeaqualifyingoneinthe sensethatitdeterminedonlyeligibilityandnotselection. The Mehrotra Committee recommended the following minimumqualificationforthepostoflecturer:

purposebytheUGCoranyotheragencyapprovedby theUGC.

oritsequivalentgradeandgoodacademicrecord.

om

ba y

Theminimumqualificationsmentionedaboveshouldnot berelaxedevenforcandidatespossessingM.Phil,Ph. D.qualificationatthetimeofrecruitment.

16.

The Court then noted certain decisions about legislative

poweroftheStateonthesubject.Thecourtconsideredthearguments advancedandafteranalysingtheRegulationobservedasunderinpara no.21. 21........................... The said Regulations do not impingeuponthepoweroftheUniversitytoselectits teachers.TheUniversitymaystillselectitslecturersby

ii)Mastersdegreewithatleastfiftyfivepercentmarks

ig h

(i) Qualifying at the National Test conducted for the

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

step local influence would be minimised and the

34Writpetitionno.4996.12

candidatesatthebasiceligibilitytestprescribedbythe saidRegulationsareawardednomarksorranksand, therefore, all who have cleared it stand at the same level.Thereis,therefore,noelementofselectioninthe process.TheUniversitysautonomyisnotentrenched

17.

It may, thus, be seen that the object of the prescribing

NationalEligibilityTestwastohaveuniformstandardforlecturerstobe

om

ba y

appointedacrossthecountryandtoremovedisparityinevaluationwhile awardingdegreesbyvariousUniversities.Thus,whattheUGCaimed atachievingbyconductingNET,istoensurethatthecandidates,who apply for lectureship, possess certain minimum qualifications to be assessedonthebasisoftheirperformanceattheNET.Thequestion, therefore, isafterhavingprescribedminimumpassingmarksforeach subject,whatobjectwastheUGCseekingtoachievebyprescribinga qualifying aggregate after the examination was over and before the resultswereout.TosaythatthecandidateswereawarethatUGCcould do so and, therefore, could not challenge what the UGC had done,

ig h

uponbythesaidRegulations.

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

written test and interview or either. Successful

35Writpetitionno.4996.12

minimum qualifying standards for the purpose of appointment as lecturers,nothingpreventedtheUGCfromfixingintheinitialNotification itself the aggregate qualifying marks at the levels fixed by them subsequently. Thiswouldhaveenabledthecandidatestostriveand achievethosepercentages.Theauthoritytomoderatetheresult,which theUGCclaimstohaveexercised,doesnotseemtohaveservedany purpose,iftheUGCbelievedthatthecandidatesshouldhave 65%,

om

ba y

60%or55%ofaggregatemarks.Fixingsuchapercentateafterviewing the result could be permitted for shortlisting for say appointments or admissions.ThelearnedcounselfortheUGCreliedupontheJudgment ofSupremeCourtin UnionofIndia vs.T.Sundararamanandothers reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court, 2418 on the question of permissibilityofshortlisting.Therecouldbenodoubtthattherecruiting authority could undertake short listing. The UGC is not a recruiting authority. Itwasjustexpectedtoprescribeuniformstandardsforthe personswhoqualifyforappointmentaslecturers.Therefore, itisnot

ig h

C ou

Testwasprescribed. Inourview,sincetheobjectwastoprescribe

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

wouldamountoverlookingtheverypurposeforwhichNationalEligibility

36Writpetitionno.4996.12

examination.

18.

InHemaniMalhotravs.HighCourtofDelhi,reportedinAIR

2008SupremeCourt,2103(1),whichwascitedatbar,thequestionwas about prescribing cut off marks for vivavoce after the process of selectionhadbegan.TheCourtruledthatsuchprescribingofcutoff markswasnotpermissibleatallafterthewrittentestwasconducted.

om

ba y

19.

In Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna and others v. Modh

Vinaykumar Dasrathlal and others, reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court,2829,theSupremeCourtwasconsideringacasewherecutoff marksforvivavocewerenotstipulatedintheadvertisement.Afterthe writtentestwasheldandpreparationforholdingvivavoceweregoing on, it was decided that candidates were required to have minimum qualifyingmarksinvivavoceaswell.TheCommissionthendisplayed thisrequirementonNoticeBoard.Thecandidatesweremadeawareof

ig h

C ou

aggregate marks before the candidates were asked to take the

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

clear as to why the UGC could not prescribe the qualification as to

37Writpetitionno.4996.12

Malhotrathatitwaspermissibletofixcutoffmarksforvivavoceandto notifythecandidatescalledforinterview. Thoughthelearnedcounsel fortheUGCsubmittedthattherewassomediscordinthetwodecisions, wedonotseeanyconflict.InHemaniMalhotrascasecutoffmarksin vivavoce were fixed without informing the candidates before they appearedforvivavoce,whereasinBarotVijaykumarBalakrishnathe candidates were made aware of the minimum qualifying marks at

om

ba y

vivevoce before they actually appeared for vivevoce. Both the Judgmentswould,thus,supporttheviewthatthecandidateisrequired tobetoldbeforeheappearsforthetestastowhatheisexpectedto scoreinordertoqualify.ThishasnotbeendonebytheUGCintheNET ExaminationheldinJune,2012.

20.

After viewing the results, prescribing such an aggregate

percentagewasobviouslyinjurioustothecandidateswhowerebeing examined only to find out whether they possessed the minimum

ig h

C ou

Inthiscontext,thecourtheldafterconsideringtheJudgmentinHimani

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

thisbeforegoingontotheoraltestbybeingmadesignofdeclaration.

38Writpetitionno.4996.12

qualifyingcriteriabeforethedeclarationoftheresult,theUGCoughtto haveclarifiedastowhatwasthepurposewhichitsoughttoachieveby suchexerciseaftertheexaminationandbeforethedeclarationofresults ifundertheactallthatitwasexpectedtodoisprescribingminimum qualifyingstandards.Thereisabsolutelynomeritintheargumentsthat simply because the UGC had so stipulated, it could do so after the examination and before declaration of the result and it should be

om

ba y

allowedtogetawaywiththisaction,whichdoesnotstandtoreason. Exerciseof moderation ofresult canbe understood, ifit is aimed at mollifyingharshresult.Infact,theaffidavitfiledonbehalfoftheUGC showsthatinthepastwhennoaggregatequalifyingpercentagewas fixed,theminimummarksrequiredforpassingindividual papershad invariablybeenrelaxed. EvenintheexaminationinJune,2012,after receiving representations and on finding that in some subjects the candidatesdidnotget65%,60%or55%marks,theUGCpermitted such candidates to qualify if they fell in the top 7% bracket in the

ig h

C ou

for the UGC submits that an expert body of the UGC was to fix

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

standardsforbeingappointedaslecturers. Sincethelearnedcounsel

39Writpetitionno.4996.12

sacrosanctaboutcriteriaofthe65%qualifyingmarks.

21.

ThelearnedcounselfortheUGCsubmittedthatthisisnota

question which could be gone into by the courts and it is a settled principleoflawthatinacademicmatters,courtsshouldnot interfere withthedecisionoftheexperts.Whiletherecanbenodoubtaboutthe propositionthat ordinarily the court should not exercise thepower of

om

ba y

judicialreviewforsubstitutingitsownJudgmentforthatofacademicians ineducationalaffairs.Asrightlypointedoutbythelearnedcounselfor thepetitioners,thisveryquestionhadbeenraisedbeforetheSupreme Court in Dr. J.P.Kulshrestha and others vs. Chancellor, Allahabad Universityandothersreportedin(1980)3SupremeCourtCases,418 whichhadbeenreferredtobythelearnedSingleJudgebytheKerla HighCourt.TheSupremeCourt,intheinimitablewordsoftheHonble JusticeKrishnaIyer,spokethus: 1...................While legal shibboleths like handoff

ig h

C ou

wise marks in each of the three papers. Thus, there was nothing

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

disciplineconcerned,providedthattheyhadsecuredminimumsubject

40Writpetitionno.4996.12

educational organs may both be wrong, a balanced approach of leaving universities in their internal functioningwellalonetoalargeextent,butstrikingat illegalitiesandinjustices,ifcommittedbyhoweverhigh an authority, educational or other, will resolve the

ajudgmentoftheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourt. 2Oncewerecognisethebasicyetsimpleproposition

in our Republic and that discretion to disobey the

om

ba y

mandateofthelawdoesnotbelongeventouniversity organsorotherauthorities,theretreatofthecourt at thesightofanacademicbody,ashashappenedhere, cannotbeapproved. On thefactsandfeaturesofthis casesuchabalancedexerciseof jurisdictionwill,ifwe may anticipate our ultimate conclusion, result in the reversalofthe appellatejudgmentandtherestoration, in substantial measure, of the learned Single Judges judgment quashing the selections made by the universitybodiesforthepostsofReadersinEnglishway backin1973. 17. Rulings ofthis Courtwerecitedbeforeusto hammer home the point that the court should not

thatnoislandsofinsubordinationtotheruleoflawexist

ig h

problemraisedbycounselbeforeusinthisappealfrom

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

universities and meticulous forensic invigilation of

41Writpetitionno.4996.12

thedisputerelatestoeducationalaffairs.Whilethereis no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But university organs, for that matter any authorityinoursystem,isboundbytheruleoflawand

other authority lesser in level decides an academic matteror aneducational question,the court keepsits

andunderstood,itisnotfairtokeepthecourtout.In

om

ba y

GovindaRaocaseGajendragadkar,J(ashethenwas) strucktherightnote: What the High Court should have considered is whetherthe appointmentmadebytheChancellorhad contravenedanystatutoryor bindingruleorordinance andindoingso,theHighCourtshouldhaveshowndue regardtotheopinionsexpressedbytheBoardandits recommendations on which the Chancellor has acted. (emphasisadded).

Thelaterdecisionscitedbeforeusbroadlyconformto theruleofcautionsoundedinGovindaRao.Butto respect an authority is not to worship it unquestioningly since the bhakti cult is inept in the

handsoff;butwhereaprovisionoflawhastoberead

ig h

cannot be a law unto itself. If the Chancellor or any

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

substitute its judgment for that of academicians when

42Writpetitionno.4996.12

affairswhichhaveanimpactonacademicbodies,the views of educational experts are entitled to great considerationbutnottoexclusivewisdom.Moreover, thepresentcaseissosimplethatprofounddoctrines aboutacademicautonomyhavenoplacehere.

22.

Herethequestionisnotofsubstitutingourownwisdomfor

soughttoachievebyprescribingaggregatequalifyingmarksafterthe

om

ba y

examinationwasoverandbeforetheresultswereout,whennosuch exercisehadbeenundertakenbytheUGCforthepastascanbeseen fromtheaffidavitfiledonbehalfoftheUGC. Thequestioniswhether the power sought from the 1991 Regulations were exercised for achievingtheobjectofframingthoseregulations.

23.

Atthecostofrepetition,ithastobestatedthattheauthority

tomoderatetheresult,cannotbeused toprescribehigherqualifying criteria. TherewasnoquestionofUGCundertakinganyshortlisting

that of the academicians. The question is what the academicians

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

criticalfieldoflaw. Inshort,whiledealingwithlegal

43Writpetitionno.4996.12

themtohavequalified.Inanycase,ascanbeseenfromtherelaxation ofrequirementsof65%,60%and55%ofaggregatemarksinrespectof the 7% of top notchers in their individual subjects, there is nothing sacrosanctaboutpercentageoftheaggregatemarksfixed.

24.

Inviewofthis,agreeingwiththeviewtakenbythelearned

SingleJudgeoftheKerlaHighCourt,weholdthattheNotificationlaying

om

ba y

down requirement of 65%, 60% and 55% percentage of aggregate marks at June, 2012 UGC NET Examination is illegal and is consequentlystruckdown.TheUGCshallproceedtodeclaretheresult ofthepetitionersonthebasisoftheirscoresinindividualpaperswith referencetotheminimummarksprescribedforpassingthosepapers. Thepetitionsare,therefore,allowedintheaboveterms.

Therequestoflearnedcounselfortherespondentstostay theordertoenabletheUniversityGrantCommissiontoapproachthe

ig h

C ou

qualifying marks in each of the three papers, it could have declared

::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

rt

and therefore, so long as the candidates secured the minimum

44Writpetitionno.4996.12

patle

JUDGEJUDGE

om

ba y

H
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2013 23:03:15 :::

ig h

C ou

declaretheresults.

rt

SupremeCourtisrejected. However,eightweekstimeisgrantedto