UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION Vs NEHA ANIL BOBDE(GADEKAR)
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: C.A. No.-008355-008355 / 2013
Diary number: 18070 / 2013
Advocates: NAVIN PRAKASH Vs
Page 1
1 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8355 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19933 of 2013]
University Grants Commission & Anr. .. Appellants
Versus
Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) ... Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8356 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.24879 of 2013]
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8357 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.25052 of 2013]
J U D G M E N T
K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Leave granted.
Page 2
2 2. We are, in these appeals, called upon to examine
whether the University Grants Commission (for short
“the UGC”) has got the power to fix the final qualifying
criteria, for those who have obtained the minimum
marks for all the papers, before the final declaration of
the results of the National Eligibility Test (for short
“NET”) for the year 2012.
3. We have, before us, a judgment of the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur,
which ruled that the UGC lacked the competence to fix
the aggregate marks as the final qualifying criteria, after
the candidates obtained the minimum marks, prescribed
in the notification dated 6.12.2012 before the
declaration of results of NET Examination, agreeing with
a similar view expressed by a learned single Judge of the
Kerala High Court.
4. Let us, at the outset, examine the scope of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short “the
Page 3
3 UGC Act”), the University Grants Commission
Regulations, 2010 etc., which is necessary for a proper
appreciation of the various contentions raised by the
learned counsel on either side.
5. The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted by the Parliament
under the provisions of Entry 66 List I of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution, which entitles it to legislate
in respect of “co-ordination and determination of
standards in Institutions for higher education or research
and scientific and technical education”. For the said
purpose, the Act authorized the Central Government to
establish a commission, by name, the University Grants
Commission. Chapter III of the Act deals with the powers
and functions of the Commission. Section 12 states that
it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in
consultation with the Universities or other bodies
concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the
promotion and co-ordination of University education and
Page 4
4 for the determination and maintenance of standards of
teaching, examination and research in Universities, and
for the purpose of performing its functions under the Act,
the Commission has been bestowed with certain powers
under the Act. Clause (j) of Section 12 reads as under:
“12(j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions.”
6. Section 26(1) of the UGC Act confers powers on it to
make regulations consistent with the Act and the Rules.
Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Section 26 are of some
relevance and are given below:
“26.(1) The Commission may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder-
xxx xxx xxx
(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff
Page 5
5 of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction;
(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University;
(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities.
xxx
xxx
xxx”
7. UGC, in exercise of its powers conferred under Clauses
(e) and (g) of Section 26(1) of the UGC Act and in
supersession of the University Grants Commission (Minimum
Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career
Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions
affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, issued the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment
of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and
Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of
Page 6
6 Standards in Higher Education)Regulations, 2010.
Regulation 2 states that the minimum qualifications for
appointment and other service conditions of University and
College teachers, Librarians and Directors of Physical
Education and Sports as a measure for the maintenance of
standards in higher education, shall be as provided in the
Annexure to the above Regulations. Clause 3.3.1 of the
Annexure reads as follows:
“3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities /Colleges/Institutions. Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Profession or equivalent positions in Universities/ Colleges/Institutions.”
8. Clause 4.0.0 deals with Direct Recruitment. Clause
4.4.0 deals with Assistant Professor and Clause 4.4.1 deals
Page 7
7 with various disciplines, like Art, Humanities etc and
qualifications prescribed for them read as follows:
“4.4.1 Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Languages, Law, Journalism and Mass Communication
i. Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is follows) 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 fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.
iii. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- clauses (i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1, candidates, who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/ Colleges/Institutions
Page 8
8 iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required
for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted.”
9. UGC, in exercise of its powers conferred on it under the
various provisions mentioned hereinabove, is duty bound to
conduct the NET for conferring eligibility for lectureship and
for awarding Junior Research Fellowship (for short “JRF”).
UGC conducts such a test every year.
10. UGC, in its 482nd meeting held on 22.12.2011, decided
as under:
“During the course of discussion, the Commission also deliberated in detail the issues pertaining to objectivity in marking of Paper-III, transparency, reducing the inter and intra- examiner variability in marking of Paper-III, delays in declaration of NET results, recommendations of the NET Moderation Committees to switch over Paper-III from descriptive to objective type on the pattern of CSIR- NET Examination wherein all the three papers are of objective type.
Having regard to the above, the Commission decided that Paper-III be converted into objective type from the ensuing examination scheduled in June 2012. Further, the Commission also recommended that the action may also be initiated for the development of question banks.”
Page 9
9 11. Notification for the NET examination was accordingly
published on 06.02.2012 for determination of the eligibility
of Indian Nationals for the award of JRF and the eligibility for
lectureship in Indian Universities and Colleges.
12. UGC, under that Notification, announced that NET
would be held on 24th June, 2012 and the candidates were
directed to read the notification carefully before submission
of the application form. Clause 3 refers to the condition of
eligibility and Para 7 of the Notification deals with the
Scheme and date of test. Operative portion of Para 7 is
given below for easy reference :-
“7. SCHEME AND DATE OF TEST:
i) The UGC-NET will be conducted in objective mode from June 2012 onwards. The Test will consist of three papers. All the three papers will consist of only objective type questions and will be held on 24th June, 2012 (SUNDAY) in two separate sessions as under:
Session Paper Marks Number of Question
Duration
First I 100 60 out of which 50 questions to be attempted
1 ¼ Hours (09.30 A.M. to 10.45 A.M.)
Page 10
10 First II 100 50 questions are
compulsory 1 ¼ Hours (10.45 to 12.00 Noon)
Second III 150 75 questions all are compulsory
2 ½ Hours (01.30 P.M. to 04.00 P.M.)
Paper- I shall be of general nature, intended to assess the teaching/research aptitude of the candidate. It will primarily be designed to test reasoning ability, comprehension, divergent thinking and general awareness of the candidate. Sixty (60) multiple choice questions of two marks each will be given, out of which the candidate would be required to answer any fifty (50). In the event of the candidate attempting more than fifty questions, the first fifty questions attempted by the candidate would be evaluated.
Paper-II shall consist of 50 objective type compulsory questions based on the subject selected by the candidate. Each question will carry 2 marks.
Paper-III shall consist of 75 objective type compulsory questions from the subject selected by the candidate. Each question will carry 2 marks.
The candidate will have to mark the responses for questions of Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III on the Optical Mark Reader (OMR) sheet provided along with the Test Booklet. The detailed instructions for filling up the OMR Sheet will be sent to the candidate along with the Admit Card.
Page 11
11
The candidates are required to obtain minimum marks separately in Paper-I, Paper- II and Paper-III as given below:
Minimum Marks (%) to be obtained CATEGORY PAPER-I PAPER-II PAPER-III GENERAL 40 (40%) 40 (40%) 75 (50%) OBC (Non- creamy layer
35 (35%) 35 (35%) 67.5 (45%) rounded off to 68
PH/VH/SC/ST 35 (35%) 35 (35%) 60 (40%)
Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required marks in each Paper, separately, as mentioned above, will be considered for final preparation of result. However, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result.”
13. UGC, accordingly, conducted the examination on 24th
June, 2012. On 17th September, 2012, the Moderation
Committee constituted by the UGC consisting of the
Chairman and Secretary, UGC, former Director, NCERT,
former Member of the UGC, Vice-Chancellor, Central
University of Gujarat, Vice-Chancellor, Tripura University,
Page 12
12 Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University, Head, Dept. of Bio-
Technology, University of Madras, Vice-Chancellor, Doon
University and few other experts, met for finalising the
“Qualifying Criteria” for Lectureship eligibility and took the
following decision :-
“II. CONSIDERATION ZONE FOR UGC-NET
The candidates are required to obtain minimum marks separately in Paper-I, Paper- II and Paper-III as given below:
Table (i) Category Minimum marks (%) to be obtained
Paper-I Paper-II Paper-III General 40(40%) 40(40%) 75 (50%) OBC 35(35%) 35(35%) 67.5(45%
) rounded off to 68)
SC/ST/PWD 35(35%) 35(35%) 60(40%)
Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required marks in each Paper, separately, as mentioned above, were to be considered for final preparation of result. As many as 2.04,150 candidates fell in the above-mentioned consideration zone.
III. QUALIFYING CRETERIA FOR LECTURESHIP ELIGIBILITY
Taking cognizance of the consideration zone described above, the final qualifying criteria
Page 13
13 for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship are to be determined by the Moderation Committee for declaration of result.
In addition to the consideration zone described above, the Committee decided to establish another category-wise benchmark for Lectureship Eligibility, i.e. aggregate percentage of all the three papers. Thus, the proposed qualifying criteria for Lectureship Eligibility are as follows:
Table (ii) Category Minimum Qualifying Percentage
Paper-I Paper-II Paper-III Aggregat e
General 40 % 40 % 50 % 65 % OBC 35 % 35 % 45 % 60 % SC/ST/PWD 35 % 35 % 40 % 55 %
As per the above criteria, it was found by the Committee that a total of 43974 candidates qualify for lectureship eligibility.”
14. The Committee recommended that the General, OBC
(Non-Creamy Layer) and SC/ST/PWD candidates would be
required to obtain an aggregate percentage of 65%, 60%
and 55% respectively in addition to the paper-wise minimum
percentage presented in clause 7 of the UGC NET
Notification for June 2012, as qualifying criteria. Based on
the recommendations of the Moderation Committee, result
Page 14
14 was declared on 18th September, 2012 and the category-
wise qualifying criteria to the UGC-NET examination held on
24th June, 2012 was as under :
“Category-Wise Qualifying Criteria for Lectureship Eligibility in UGC-NET held on 24th June, 2012:
Category Minimum Qualifying Percentage Paper-I Paper-II Paper-III Aggregat
e General 40 % 40 % 50 % 65 % OBC (Non Creamy Layer)
35 % 35 % 45 % 60 %
SC/ST/PWD 35 % 35 % 40 % 55 %
15. UGC later received some representations regarding
the criteria adopted for the NET-JUNE 2012 and keeping in
view the same, the Commission met on 20.10.2012 and set
up a five member Expert Committee from amongst the
Commission Members for examining the
representations/grievances related to NET-JUNE 2012 and re-
visit the results, if found necessary. The Committee, after
examining the representations, recommended as under:-
“(i) Grievances related to insufficient information in the advertisement: The Committee noted that the advertisement clearly
Page 15
15 stated that securing minimum marks required in each paper do not amount to eligibility for the purpose of NET. In the past, scores in all the three papers were taken into account while preparing the list of selected candidates for the purposes of JRF. At the same time, the Committee felt that in future the announcement should make it very clear that the scores in all the three papers shall be taken into account for NET as well as JRF and that Eligibility for NET shall be determined separately for each subject by taking into account the performance of all the candidates.
(ii) Grievances related to the uniform and high cut-off for UGC-NET across various disciplines: The Committee examined the pattern of marks secured in different subjects and the proportion of candidates who were eligible for UGC-NET based on the uniform cut-off approved by the Moderation Committee. It noted that the proportion of students who made it varied hugely across the subjects, from above 30% to as low as less than 1% in many subjects. The Committee felt that this method puts candidates from several subjects to disadvantage. A fair method must also take into account the performance relative to other candidates. Accordingly, the Committee recommended a correction in the list of candidates eligible for UGC-NET held in June 2012. For this correction, additional criteria (b below) shall be used and any candidate who meets either of the following two criteria shall be eligible for UGC-NET:
a) Those candidates who had made it to the consideration zone, i.e. those who received a minimum of 40%, 40% & 50% marks in Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III respectively for General Category; 35%, 35% & 45% marks in Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III respectively for OBC (Non-
Page 16
16 Creamy Layer) Category and 35%, 35% & 40% marks in Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III respectively for SC/ST/PWD Category and those who secured aggregate percentage (obtained by combining marks of Paper-I, II & III) of 65% for General Category, 60% for OBC (Non- Creamy Layer) and 55% for SC/ST/PWD category candidates (This is the same criterion as described by the earlier Moderation Committee).
OR b) Those candidates who figure among top 7% of
all the candidates who appeared in NET; this shall be calculated separately for each discipline and for each category (SC/ST/OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)/PWD. Accordingly a cut-off will be determined for each subject and each category for this purpose. In case of tie (when several students have same identical aggregate marks) all the candidates appearing at the qualifying marks shall be included. Candidates who do not secure minimum required score in each paper and are therefore not in the consideration zone, will not be included in this list even if they fall among the top 7% within their subject and category.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”
16. The Committee revisited the results and decided to
qualify a few additional candidates for JRF and eligibility for
lectureship both and eligibility for lectureship only.
Accordingly, UGC prepared supplementary result qualifying
Page 17
17 15,178 additional candidates which was declared on
12.11.2012. This was in addition to the candidates declared
as qualified in the original result of June 2012 UGC-NET
declared on 18.9.2012.
17. Altogether 5,71,630 candidates appeared in the UGC-
NET Examination, 2012, out of which 2,04,150 candidates
got the minimum marks prescribed separately in Paper I,
Paper II and Paper III and fell in the consideration zone.
From that, 57,550 candidates were declared passed in the
NET Examination for the year 2012, applying the qualifying
criteria laid down by the Expert Committee of the UGC.
18. We notice, the candidates who have obtained the
minimum marks in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III approached
the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench seeking a
declaration that the change of qualifying criteria reflected in
the final declaration of results is arbitrary, illegal and without
authority of law and is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Further, it was also stated that the
declaration of NET alone being the minimum eligibility
Page 18
18 standard, UGC has attempted to fix the Aggregate Criteria as
an additional qualifying criteria, which action of the UGC
goes beyond the scope of the notification. Further, it was
also pointed out that if at all the UGC has got the power to
fix any additional qualifying criteria prior to the declaration
of results, the same should have been notified at the time of
taking the NET examination. Further, it was also the case of
the writ petitioners that the object of prescribing NET is only
to have uniform standards of lecturers to be appointed
across the country and to remove the disparity in evaluation
by awarding the degrees by various Universities and that the
UGC is not a recruiting authority. UGC, according to the
candidates, is only expected to prescribe uniform standards
and not to superimpose any further qualifying criteria before
the declaration of the results. The High Court found favour
with the contentions raised by the writ petitioners and
allowed the writ petition and directed the UGC to declare the
results with reference to the minimum marks prescribed for
passing those papers. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals
have been preferred by the UGC.
Page 19
19
19. We have heard counsel on the either side at length.
Let us, at the outset, point out that the power of the UGC to
set the standard of qualifying criteria, as such, is not
disputed but, it was pointed out, such qualifying criteria
ought to have been notified and made known to the
candidates before taking the examination on 24th June, 2012.
After prescribing that the candidates were required to obtain
minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III,
there is no justification in superimposing an additional
qualifying criteria before the declaration of the results.
20. We have elaborately referred to various statutory
provisions which would clearly indicate that the UGC as an
expert body has been entrusted by UGC Act the general duty
to take such steps as it may think fit for the determination
and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and
research in Universities. It is also duty bound to perform
such functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed
necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of
higher education in India. The UGC has also got the power
Page 20
20 to define the qualification that should ordinarily be required
for any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the
University and to regulate the maintenance of standards and
coordination of work and faculties in the Universities.
21. This Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh 1994
Supp. (3) SCC 516 dealt with the powers of UGC elaborately
and held as follows:
“20. The ambit of Entry 66 has already been the subject of the decisions of this Court in the cases of the Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar 1963 Supp 1 SCR 112 and the Osmania University Teachers’ Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987) 4 SCC 671. The UGC Act is enacted under the provisions of Entry 66 to carry out the objective thereof. Its short title, in fact, reproduces the words of Entry 66. The principal function of the UGC is set out in the opening words of Section 12, thus:
“It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take … all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities ….”
It is very important to note that a duty is cast upon the Commission to take “all such steps as it may think fit … for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching”. These are very wide-
Page 21
21 ranging powers. Such powers, in our view, would comprehend the power to require those who possess the educational qualifications required for holding the post of lecturer in Universities and colleges to appear for a written test, the passing of which would establish that they possess the minimal proficiency for holding such post. The need for such test is demonstrated by the reports of the commissions and committees of educationists referred to above which take note of the disparities in the standards of education in the various Universities in the country. It is patent that the holder of a postgraduate degree from one University is not necessarily of the same standard as the holder of the same postgraduate degree from another University. That is the rationale of the test prescribed by the said Regulations. It falls squarely within the scope of Entry 66 and the UGC Act inasmuch as it is intended to co-ordinate standards and the UGC is armed with the power to take all such steps as it may think fit in this behalf. For performing its general duty and its other functions under the UGC Act, the UGC is invested with the powers specified in the various clauses of Section 12. These include the power to recommend to a University the measures necessary for the improvement of University education and to advise in respect of the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation [clause (d)]. The UGC is also invested with the power to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of such functions [clause (j)]…………”
Page 22
22 22. The judgment referred to above was later followed in
University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary
and Others (1996) 10 SCC 536, wherein this Court dealt
with the recommendation of the Malhotra Committee and
the powers of UGC. Reference may also be made to
another judgment of this Court in Annamalai University
represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government,
Information and Tourism Department and Others
(2009) 4 SCC 590, wherein this Court reiterated that the UCG
Act was enacted for effectuating co-ordination and
determination of standards in universities and colleges.
23. UGC, in exercise of its powers conferred under clauses
(e) and (g) of Section 26(1) of the UGC Act, issued the UGC
(Minimum Qualification of Teachers and other Academic
Staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for
Maintenance of Standards of Higher Education) Regulations,
2010. Clause 3.3.1 of the Regulation specifically states the
NET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for
recruitment and for appointment of Assistant Professors in
Page 23
23 the Universities/Colleges/Institutions. Clause 4.4.1 stipulates
that before fulfilling the other prescribed qualifications, the
candidates must have cleared the National Eligibility Test
conducted by the UGC. Therefore, the power of the UGC to
prescribe, as it thinks fit¸ the qualifying criteria for
maintenance of standards of teaching, examination etc.
cannot be disputed. It is in exercise of the above statutory
powers, the UGC has issued the notification for holding the
NET on 24th June, 2012. Para 7 of the Notification deals with
the Scheme of the Act which clearly indicates that the
candidates are required to obtain minimum marks
separately in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III. It also clearly
indicates that only such candidates who obtain
minimum required marks in each paper will be
considered for final preparation of results. The final
qualifying criteria for JRF and eligibility for lectureship
shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result.
Above clause deals with the following requirements to be
followed before the final declaration of the results:-
Page 24
24 (i) Candidates to obtain minimum marks separately
in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III;
(ii) Candidates who have satisfied the above criteria
only would be subjected to a qualifying criteria
before the final preparation of result; (Consideration
Zone)
(iii) UGC has to fix the final qualifying criteria before the
declaration of results.
24. Candidates are seeking final declaration of results the
moment they have obtained the minimum marks separately
in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, ignoring the other two
steps, referred to hereinbefore, and also forgetting the fact
that only those who obtain the minimum required marks
alone will fall in the consideration zone. All these steps, as
we have referred to above, have been clearly stipulated in
the notification for NET Examination, 2012.
25. We find, 2,04,150 candidates have obtained the
minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III.
All those candidates were subjected to a final qualifying
Page 25
25 criteria fixed by the Committee constituted by the UGC,
since they fell within the Consideration Zone. Applying the
final qualifying criteria, the Committee made the following
recommendations :-
(i) The Committee recommended that a total of 43,974 candidates may be declared qualified for lectureship eligibility as per the qualifying criteria given below :-
Category Minimum Qualifying Percentage Paper-
I Paper-II Paper-III Aggregat
e General 40 % 40 % 50 % 65 % OBC (Non Creamy Layer)
35 % 35 % 45 % 60 %
SC/ST/PWD 35 % 35 % 40 % 55 %
(ii) The Committee recommended that the NET Bureau may finalize the JRF awardees as per the criteria mentioned above out of those candidates who had opted for JRF and have qualified for lectureship eligibility.
(iii) The Committee authorized the Chairman, University Grants Commission to declare the result for eligibility for lectureship and Junior Research Fellowship as recommended by the Moderation Committee.
While concluding the deliberations, the Committee expressed the appreciation for the painstaking effort of the NET Bureau in analyzing the results and presenting its findings.
Page 26
26 26. We notice, based on the recommendations of the
Expert Committee, the final results were declared and
43,974 candidates were declared qualified for lectureship
eligibility as per the qualifying criteria. As already indicated,
some more relaxation was also granted in favour of those
persons who got the minimum qualifying marks since those
candidates figured amongst the top 7% of all the candidates
who appeared in NET, which was in addition to the
candidates declared as qualified in the original result
declared on 18.9.2012. 15,178 candidates were benefitted
by that relaxation. Consequently, as already stated, a total
of 57,550 candidates were declared passed in the NET Exam.
2012.
27. We are of the considered opinion that all the steps
taken by the UGC were strictly in accordance with clause 7
of the Notification for the NET Examination, 2012.
Prescribing the qualifying criteria as per clause 7, in our
view, does not amount to a change in the rule of the game
as it was already pre-meditated in the notification. We are
Page 27
27 not inclined to say that the UGC has acted arbitrarily or
whimsically against the candidates. The UGC in exercise of
its statutory powers and the laid down criteria in the
notification for NET June, 2012, has constituted a Moderation
Committee consisting of experts for finalising the qualifying
criteria for lectureship eligibility and JRF. UGC acted on the
basis of the recommendations made by the Expert
Committee. The recommendations made by them have
already been explained in the earlier part of the judgment.
Reason for making such recommendations has also been
highlighted in the Report.
28. We are of the considered view that the candidates were
not misled in any manner. Much emphasis has been made
on the words “clearing the National Eligibility Test”.
“Clearing” means clearing the final results, not merely
passing in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, which is only the
initial step, not final. To clear the NET Examination, as
already indicated, the candidate should satisfy the final
Page 28
28 qualifying criteria laid down by the UGC before declaration of
the results.
29. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless
there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the
Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep
their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of
the experts. This Court in University of Mysore vs. C.D.
Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh
Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh
Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC
284, has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit
in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic
bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to
leave the decision of academic experts who are more
familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts
generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted
with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the
determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination and research in the University. For attaining
Page 29
29 the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any
“qualifying criteria”, which has a rational nexus to the object
to be achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of
teaching, examination and research. Candidates declared
eligible for lectureship may be considered for appointment
as Assistant Professors in Universities and colleges and the
standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with
the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to
the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only
implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying down the
qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary,
illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
30. The Appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment
of the High Court is set aside. The Applications for
Impleadment and Intervention are dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
..…………………………….J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
Page 30
30
…….………………………J. (A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi, September 19, 2013.