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.