View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!Introducing SlideShare for AndroidExplore all your favorite topics in the SlideShare appGet the SlideShare app to Save for Later — even offline
View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new Android app!View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!
BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF .................................... W. P. (CIVIL)............../2012Name AddressPincode : Petitioner1.University Grants Commission : Respondents Rep.by its Chairman Bahadurshah Zfar Marg New Delhi 1100022.Chairman University Grants Commission Bahadurshah Zfar Marg New Delhi 1100023.Secretary University Grants Commission Bahadurshah Zfar Marg New Delhi 1100024.Union of India rep.by secretary Human Resource Department Central Secretriate New Delhi
Orginal petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1. The petitioner is holding a PostGraduate Degree in ................with ........% marks His/Her ambition even during the school day was to become a teacher . 2. The respondent no.1 is a statutory body ,established Under Sction 4 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956.(here in after refered to as Act).it is generaly refered to as UGC.It was established for the purpose of promoting and coordinating university education and etermining and maintaining standards of teaching, examination and research in universities also with framing regulations on minimum standards of education. (See the point minimum standarad. ) 3. The respondent no.1 is a body corporate as provided under section 2 of Section 4 of the Act.In the discahrge of its functions under the Act , the respondent no.1 shall be guided by the Central Government on questions of policy relating to the national purposes.The respondent no.1 is empowered under section 26 of the act to make regulations consisitent with the act and the rules made there under defining the qualifications thet should be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction.As indicated above the the respondent no.1 is a statutary authority to prescribe the qualifications that should be accquired by a person to be appoointed a teacher.It is by exercise of the statutary power that the respondent no.1 had issued regulation in the yera 2010 namely UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appoinment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and other measures for the maintenanace of standard in
Higher education.)Regulation 2010.The said Regulation stipulated thet clearning the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by UGC shall be required for being eligible for appointment to the post of teachers to any university or colleges,The exemption from this requirement is garnted only to those who will be obtaining their Ph.D in compliance with UGC (Minimum standard procedure for Award of M.Phil and Ph.D degree )rEGULATION 2009.Although it is generally being refered to as NET examination,the full name of that examination is University Grants Commission National Eligibility Test 2012 for Junior Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureship.In other words ,it is as per the result of this examination that Junior Research Fellowship is granted and also eligibility for lectureship is determined.This is the declared purpose of that nation wide examination.4. The respondent no.1 in the matter of Universities and othet educational institutions importing higher education is no doubt very wide.But the very conferment of such wide powers on that authority implies that those powers are to be exercised most cautiously as otherwise ,the result would be calamitous.The petitioner aggrieved by such a calamitous consequence of a capricious action of the first respondent ,is filing this orginal petiton .5. The respondent no.1 has been conducting National Eligibility Test examination at the national level twice in a year from the 2006 The last NET examination was conducted on 24 062012 thriugh out the counrty at selected centers .In Kerala only three centers .Sinilar centers were availabe in other state also.6. It is understood that over More than 7 lakh candidates (7,07,009) registered for this examination out of which 5 lakh (5,71,627) appeared for National Eligibility Test (NET) in June 24,2012 exam .It was on 12042012 that the Respondent no .1 issued notification for the ugc NET Junior Research Fellowship and Eligibility for
Lectureship and the examination was conducted on 2406202.A sum of application fee for General Candidates Rs.450/ for Other Backward Classes Rs.225/ and for SC/ST/PH/VH candidates Rs.110/ . A true copy of the admit card issued to the petitioner and marked as Ext.p1.7. There are three question papers for the UGC NET examination .All the three papers consist of only objective type questions. Paper 1 :Teaching anf Reaserch aptitude (Genaral paper for all candidates) Paper 2 : subject paper Paper 3 : subject paper . The question papers of paper 1,2 and 3 downloaded from the UGC website are produced and marked as Ext.p2,p3 and p4 respectively.8. The first respondent had as per its notification pertaining to the NET examiantion held on 24062012 informed the candiadte that the UGC NET examaination would be conducted in objective mode from June 2012 onwards.This notification on the scheme and date of Examination was published in the UGC website www.ugc.ac.in.The copy of that notification downloaded from the UGC website are produced and marked as Ext.p5.In that notification ,the first repondent had specified that the syllabus of PaperI, PaperII and PaperIII will remain the same.The syllabus was also published in UGC website are produced and marked as Ext.p6.are produced and marked as Ext.p9. The petitioner respectfuly submits that the cut off mark generally reffered to the final qualifying criteria for clearing the UGC NET examiantion held on 24062012 was fixed at 65% for general category candidates , for OBC 60% and SC/ST 55% ,which is the highest in the entire history of NET examination from the year 2006 onwards.This is the final qualifying cut off mark decided by the respondent
no.1 at that criteria downloaded from the website is produced and marked as Ext.p7.The petitioner,a candiadte from general category ,is questioning the legality and propriety of fixation of the cut off mark at 65% for general category on grounds essentially constitutional.The UGC,statutory guarntor of standards in the universities has undergone a tragic process of moral and legal devaluation by committing a grave error of which the petitioner is a victim .The procedure adopted by the first respondent is devoid of fairness by any standard .A public authority cannot act capriciously and it should be held regorously to the standard by which such authority has prefessed to act.10. The petitioner has already refferred to Ext p5 notofication of Respondent no.1 regarding the scheme and date of the examination .In that notification minimum marks to be seperately obtained by the candidate in paper 1.paper 2 and paper 3 are shown.A candidate from general category is to obtain 40% in paper 1 and paper 2 and 50% in paper 3Whereas in the case of OBC(non Cremylayer) it is 35% in paper I and paper II and 45% in paper III. For SC/ST, and for physically handicapped/visually handicapped, it is 35%, 35% and 40% respectively. It is stipulated in the Ext. P5 notification that only such candidates who option the minimum required marks in each paper separately will be considered for final preparation of result. Further, it is also provided in that notification that the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship(JRF) and Eligibility for lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result.11. The petitioner may submit that the procedure laid down in Ext.p5 notification to the effect that the final qualifying criteria for eligibility for lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result is most irresponsible, opposed to law and devoid of any fairness that should illuminate any administrative action. In the case of Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) final qualifying criteria by UGC can be appreciated in so far as the question of
funding is involved in that matter. The Junior Research Fellow qualify the test has to be granted fellowship amount for a considerable period of three years and fund allocation may impose a constraint in respect of it. But so far as the Eligibility for Lectureship is concerned, it may be noted that it is not a recruitment test or a competitive test, it is only a qualifying test and neither the UGC nor the Government assures any employment to those who clear the UGC NET examination. It is illogical to hold that only a specified percentage of candidates taking the examination is competent to teach. The UGC had as indicated in Ext. p5 notification fixed a percentage of marks as the minimum to be obtained by a candidate and whoever obtains that percentage should have been taken as having cleared the NET examination. But that was not done. The violation of this universally accepted procedure applicable to any qualifying examination has infringed the constitutional right of the candidates including the petitioner and such violation has resulted in the action of UGC becoming too unreasonable rendering it liable to be invalidated.12. The result of a qualifying examination cannot be decided fancifully or by a lot or a magic stick. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution cannot connive at the unreasonable procedure adopted by the first respondent. It has acted at its peril and its impugned action is liable to be struck down. In this connection, the petitioner may also submit that the respondent no.1 had not so far laid down any final qualifying criteria for eligibility for lectureship in any UGC net examination and it was for the first time that such a criteria was applied in respect o0f the UGC net examination conducted on 24-06-2012 that is the last examination taken by the petitioner for the first time. It is true that for junior research fellowship, the first respondent had applied earlier also such final qualifying criteria and it is justified for the reason already indicated, that is probable constrained in the availability of fund for providing fellowship amount.13. There is no provision in the Indian constitution that enables the government or any public authority to provide reservation to any category in a qualifying examination.
If this is allowed, it may lead to a practice of prescribing different percentage of marks to be obtained by different categories of candidates in examinations like SSLC,Plus Two , BA, BSC, B com,LLB,MA MSC,LLM,B Tech, M Tech, MBBS,MD,etc. In short it is the petitioners fervent prayer that assuming without admitting that a cutoff mark can be prescribed by UGC as the final qualifying criteria, it should be 60% for all so that general category candidates like the petitioner are not oppressed in the name of misguided reservation unsupported by the constitution. Discrimination is discrimination even though it is the result of action of an expert statutory body and the honorable court with its long arms to reach at any injustice may intervene in the matter for the following among other grounds : GROUNDS1.The Ext.p5 syllabus remaining what it is , the respondent no.1 should not have withdrawn the procedure of providing electives in paper III. The action of respondent no.1 is arbitrary unjustified and unreasonable. Great prejudice has been caused by that illegal action to the petitioner.2.The respondent no.1 should no have fixed any cut off mark at all for deciding the result of eligibility for lectureship. The UGC NET examination being only a qualifying examination and not a recruitment examination. 3.At any rate, the procedure adopted by the respondent no.1 in deciding the final qualifying criteria (cut off marks ) after the examination, not before it, is opposed to all canons of justice and it is devoid of any fairness or reasonableness. The respondent no. 1 has acted arbitrarily and therefore its action s vitiated and is liable to be invalidated as it is unconstitutional.4.Prescribing of different final qualifying criteria(cut off marks) for different categories of
candidates is unjustified and unconstitutional and it is an infringement of the petitioners constitutional right to equality in a qualifying examination. The UGC NET examination not being an examination conducted for appointment to any post and the same being only a qualifying examination, the prescription of different cut off marks for different categories of candidates is violative of Article 14 of the constitution. 5.In the absence of any legislation by the state as contemplated under Article 15 of the Indian constitution, no different cut off marks (final qualifying criteria) can be validity fixed by the respondent no.1. So the action of the respondent no.1 in this regard is violative of the constitution and hence void. 6.The Ext. P5 notification contained the minimum marks to be separately obtained by a candidate for being considered for final preparation of results. The final result;t of UGC NET examination held on 24062012 should have been published on the basis of the minimum marks prescribed in Ext. P5 notification as was the practice in the examinations held in the previous years without laying down a further cut off mark for the first time.PRAYER:(1) The honorable court may be pleased to call for the entire records from first respondent in respect of the UGC NET examination taken by the petitioner and held on 24062012 and quash by a writ of certiorari or by any other writ or order the result declared by the respondent no. 1 so far as it relates to the petitioner, and
(2) declare that the petitioner has successfully cleared the UGC NET examination taken by the petitioner and held on 24062012.(3) granting such other order or direction as the facts of the case would require to meet ends of justice. ******************************************************************