• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Writ of petition ugc net case 2012 draft sample
 

Writ of petition ugc net case 2012 draft sample

on

  • 3,110 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,110
Views on SlideShare
3,110
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
59
Comments
2

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • For latest updates of UGC NET June 202 pls join the group

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/ugcnetjune2012
    and
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/socialpetitions/
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • i need ur cell number pl
    by
    surya
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Writ of petition ugc net case 2012 draft sample Writ of petition ugc net case 2012 draft sample Document Transcript

    • 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.                 ******************************************************************