IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM                                   PRESENT:              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE...
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION      ON 01-01-2013,ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.31408/2012 AND CONNECTED    ...
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------    W.P.(c) Nos.31443,...
days before the declaration of the result, sought to change the norms, whereby some modificationwas made with regard to th...
projected by the petitioners, to the effect that the rules of selection could not be changed aftercommencement of the proc...
made applicable to all the petitioners herein, as the benefit of declaration will stand equallyapplicable to both the side...
Kerala Highcourt Second Judgement :UGC NET June 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Kerala Highcourt Second Judgement :UGC NET June 2012

40,330 views

Published on

Kerala highcourt second judgement : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013

Published in: Education
28 Comments
6 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Please provide us a productive result. Because 25th March hearing of Kerala High Court is showing pending in case No.WA173/2013
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • declared goods(wood logs) sent to the party without Delivery Note form no.15. Due to exhosted the delivery note.any case decision available for such case.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • for frequent news visit
    http://www.ugcnetexamjune2012.blogspot.in/
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • @meerashankar3 for case updates visit http://www.facebook.com/groups/ugcnetjune2012/
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
    DAILY CAUSE LIST
    (For 28th, February, 2013


    COURT ROOM. '01'

    HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR
    HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    8. WA 44/2013 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    IN WPC 22187/2012 SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
    & IA 108/2013 IMPLEAD SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
    & IA 57/2013 IMPLEAD SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
    & IA 90/2013 LEAVE SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
    & IA 107/2013 LEAVE SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
    & IA 54/2013 IMPLEAD SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE
    & IA 71/2013 IMPLEAD SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
    & IA 91/2013 IMPLEAD SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)
    AT 1.45 P.M SRI.S.MANU
    SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
    SRI.A.G.BASIL
    SRI.SWATHY DAS
    WITH
    WA 74/2013 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    IN WPC 22280/2012 SRI.A.C.DEVASIA
    SRI.K.C.ELDHO
    SRI.K.JAJU BABU
    SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    WITH
    WA 79/2013 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    IN WPC 24133/2012 SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)
    WITH
    WA 117/2013 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    IN WPC 26468/2012 SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
    WITH
    WA 142/2013 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    IN WPC 26704/2012 SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
    WITH
    WA 143/2013 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    IN WPC 23759/2012 SRI.C.K.PRASAD
    & IA 69/2013 EXEMPT
    WITH
    WA 145/2013 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    IN WPC 22939/2012 SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
    & IA 72/2013 EXEMPT
    WITH
    WA 162/2013 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    IN WPC 23821/2012 SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
    & IA 79/2013 EXEMPT
    Contd....4
    Court -1 Page 4 28/02/2013
    WITH
    WA 163/2013
    IN WPC 23770/2012 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    & IA 80/2013 EXEMPT SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
    WITH
    WA 164/2013
    IN WPC 24793/2012 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    & IA 81/2013 EXEMPT SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
    WITH
    WA 170/2013
    IN WPC 24278/2012 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    & IA 86/2013 EXEMPT SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA -SERVED
    ON(NO MEMO)
    SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
    WITH
    WA 171/2013
    IN WPC 24106/2012 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    & IA 87/2013 EXEMPT SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
    WITH
    )WA 173/2013
    IN WPC 23746/2012 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC /
    & IA 88/2013 EXEMPT SRI.R.V.SREEJITH
    http://causelists.nic.in/temp/28392.html
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
40,330
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
84
Comments
28
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Kerala Highcourt Second Judgement :UGC NET June 2012

  1. 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/11TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 31443 of 2012 (E) ---------------------------PETITIONER(S):--------------------------RAJANI.M.P.,W/O.SREEJITH AND D/O.HARIDASAN.P.,NOW RESIDING AT MAMBRAKKATTIL HOUSE,WEST CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.BY SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN,SENIOR ADVOCATEADV.SMT.P.R.REENARESPONDENT(S):---------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC), BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. COORDINATOR, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (NET), OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI-110 002. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
  2. 2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-01-2013,ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.31408/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:WP(C)NO.31443/2012 APPENDIXPETITIONERS EXHIBITS:P1 COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD OF THE PETITIONER ,ROLL NO.13083743P2 COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF THE PETITIONER.RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE
  3. 3. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------- W.P.(c) Nos.31443, 31444, 31464, 31467, 31473, 31474, 31477, 31440, 31456, 31479, 31492, 31428, 31430, 31420, 31435, 31425, 31416, 31442, 31441, 31437, 31463, 31472, 31438, 31408, 31412, 31421, 31432, 31449, 31450, 31453, 31454, 31461, 31488, 31491, 31494, 31501, 31508, 31509, 31510, 31515, 31516, 31517, 31518, 31525, 31527, 31528, 31529, 31534, 31535, 31538, 31543, 31554, 31556, 31557, 31561, 31562, 31563, 31575, 31576, 31577, 31589, 31598, 31603, 31604, 31605, 31606, 31608, 31616, 31617, 31618, 31619, 31623, 31628, 31629, 31634, 31636, 31637, 31638, 31639, 31640, 31641, 31643, 31650, 31652, 31653, 31654, 31662, 31666 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Whether Rules of the game could be changed during the middleof the game, is the issue involved in all these cases. 2. The matter relates to acquisition of the requisite qualification for appointment as Lecturerby clearing the National Eligibility Test ( NET for short). The test was notified to be conductedby the UGC, stipulating the norms as to the particulars of the papers, the minimum marks to beobtained and such other details.The examination was scheduled to be conducted on 24.06.2012. 3. The petitioners participated in the examination and according to them they have crossedthe hurdle, with regard to the minimum marks prescribed and notified. But the UGC, just a few
  4. 4. days before the declaration of the result, sought to change the norms, whereby some modificationwas made with regard to the minimum qualifying marks and mode of reckoning the same;introducing the total/ aggregate minimum as well, apart from the minimum marks to be secured foreach paper. This was quite to the disadvantage of persons like the petitioners, who were never toldof such a course earlier, as a result of which, they could not get the clearance. It was in the saidcircumstance, that similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing several writ petitions,which were considered together and a common judgment was passed by a learned Single Judge ofthis Court on 17/12/2012 ( W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 & connected cases). 4. As per the said judgment, the course pursued by the UGC was held as not correct orsustainable and accordingly, the impugned proceeding stipulating the category-wise qualifyingcriteria for lectureship was set aside. It was declared by this Court, that all the petitioners, who hadobtained the separate minimum prescribed in the notification for Papers I, II and III, had cleared theNET and appropriate follow up action was directed to be taken, to issue certificates to them, withinone month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioners in these writpetitions seek for similar benefit, as given by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. 5. Sri.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, entered appearance onbehalf of the respondents and made a submission that the respondents are very much aggrieved ofthe verdict passed by the learned Single Judge and that steps are being taken to file writ appeal. It ispointed out that, if the relief sought for is granted, it will cause severe hardship to the UGC. It isalso brought to the notice of this Court that in most of these cases, interim orders have been passed,in terms of the final verdict as mentioned hereinbefore. 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the judgment already passed by thelearned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases is purely based on thequestion of law, as there is no dispute with regard to the facts and figures. The question of law hasbeen considered and answered in favour of the petitioners concerned and a declaration of law hasbeen made by thisCourt. The Court also considered the scope and applicability ofjudicial precedents cited from both the sides particularly, the law declared by the Apex Court inK.Manjusree v. State of Andra Pradesh and another ( 2008(3) SCC 512) , the Full Bench of thisCourt in Dr.Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others ( 2009(4) KHC 404( FB) and a DivisionBench of this Court in Jayachandran v.High Court of Kerala ( 2010 (4) KLT 49) (to which I was also a member), in support of the case
  5. 5. projected by the petitioners, to the effect that the rules of selection could not be changed aftercommencement of the process of selection. The reliance sought to be placed from the part of theUGC with reference to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962of 2011 with regard to the question of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce, introduced justtwo or three days before the commencement of the oral tests, though it was not stipulated in theadvertisement issued by the PSC, was also considered therein and it was distinguished for thereason that, such stipulation was very much incorporated in the relevant rules, but omitted to beincorporated in the advertisement and hence held as not applicable. It was after considering the rivalcontention and also the binding judicial precedents, that a finding was rendered,leading to thejudgment as aforesaid. 7. As mentioned hereinbefore, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is ratherdeclaratory in nature. It has been held by the Apex Court that, if the verdict is of declaratorycharacter, it shall be made applicable to all who are similarly situated; irrespective of the factwhether they are parties to the verdict or not. This is reported in Ashwani Kumar and others v. Stateof Bihar and others (1997(2) SCC 1). Since the petitioners seek for the benefit of such declaratoryjudgment, this Court does not find any reason to take a different course. 8. In the above circumstances, all these writ petitions are allowed, holding that the petitionersare entitled to have the benefit of the judgment passed in W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 & connectedcases.The petitioners, who have obtained the separate minimum marks prescribed in the notification forPapers I, II and III, are declared as cleared the NET. Appropriate follow up action shall be takenby the concerned respondent to issue certificates to them at the earliest, at any rate within onemonth from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, subject to curing the defects if anypointed out, from the partof the respondents.. 9. Considering the fact that petitioners are being given the benefit of the above declaratoryjudgment, it is also necessary to put the petitioners on alert, as to the steps stated as being taken bythe UGC to challenge the basic judgment, by way of Writ Appeal. 10. In the above circumstances, it is made clear that, if the writ appeal being filed by the UGCcomes to be allowed in favour of the UGC, naturally the law declared by the Division Bench will be
  6. 6. made applicable to all the petitioners herein, as the benefit of declaration will stand equallyapplicable to both the sides. Taking note of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, thepetitioners in all these cases are directed to furnish an additional set of the concerned writ petition tothe learned Standing Counsel forthwith, to save time in respect of the procedural formalities to becompleted. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGEW.P.(C)No.31443/2012

×