Outraged candidates to file review petition against SC judgement on UGC NET
20 Sep 2013

The University Grants Commission’s policy for fixing eligibility criteria for candidates to qualify the National Eligibility Test (NET), is not “arbitrary and illegal”, said the Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgement. With this, the SC has almost put an end to a one year long legal fight between the candidates who appeared for the NET June 2012 and the UGC.

A bench headed by justice KS Radhakrishnan was hearing a petition of the UGC, challenging a Bombay High Court order setting aside the eligibility criteria fixed by the UGC after holding NET in June 2012. A single-judge Bench of the Kerala High Court and a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the criteria.

The bench has noted that the candidates who took the NET 2012 were not misled in any manner and clarified the phrase “clearing the NET” means clearing the final results and not just passing the three papers of the examination.

The bench also said that courts shall not interfere in matters of education unless there is a violation of statutory provisions.

However, many of the candidates who were part of the this long drawn fight are in no mood to let UGC go off their hook and are planning to file a review petition in the apex court against the judgement.

Prashant Jha, a candidate said, “Though the SC judgement has gone against us, I think still we the option of filing the review petition with some senior lawyer presenting our case, because I think the case was not well presented in the court.”

Another candidate, Hrisabh Jain has put the whole blame on the advocates who presented their case and said, “In the Supreme Court, the UGC had contended that that have given the notification of this qualifying criteria long before the exam result which a false. They are providing wrong information to the SC and this was not properly contested by the lawyers that are the reason we lost.”

The court said, “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 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,” it said.

V Ratnakar another candidate said, “SC Judgement is gone against to student on the ground ‘We are of the view that in academic matters unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts’ but, what about constitutional rights of common people, who will think about them, will bodies like UGC be allowed to exploit them.”

A senior professor at the University of Delhi, who did not wish to be named said, “It was an unnecessary move by the candidates to approach court in this matter because the UGC was not wrong on its part. It is highly important for the higher education system to get best talent to impart quality education. Many lawyers made money out of it. It was clearly stated in the notification that ‘The final qualifying criteria for JRF and eligibility for lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result’.”

Raziya Parvin, Assistant Professor, Madras University, also justified UGC decision and said “This is a right move by UGC as there is dearth of good quality people in the higher education system and this might help the whole system. This will increase competition among candidates and would ultimately lead to good and quality people coming into teaching profession.”

The June NET 2012 candidates have convened their meeting over the judgement to chart out future course of action.

“Though the Supreme Court observation is being seen as the final judgement by many it is to be noted that the SC has only accepted the SLP filed by UGC. When an SLP is accepted by the SC, it gets converted to a Civil Appeal,” said Sushma Deswal one of the candidates who suffered because of change in norms.

“Now our case also is having the same status which means that the court proceedings will go on and we have to challenge this point with the help of Kerala High Court's verdict and we have to rope in an expert senior advocate,” she said.


Your comment will be published after moderation.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Sign in using Facebook
nilesh nishikant
30 Jan 2014

अब कोई बता सकता है की अब इसके बाद क्या होगा कोई फिर sai केस कर रहा है क्या

29 Oct 2013

Its fully faltu UGC. becouse im trying to talk UGC team but i haven't get cantacted them ever. i dont know whether the phone numbers are not working or staffs are available.from 2day im keep on dailing phone No which are mention in site but no one is answaring my call

G. Singh
20 Oct 2013

The pity of Indian governance is that rules are made, implemented, and defended by those who are neither subject to those rules, neither they have any understanding of them, and nor they have any experience of those rules. The calling of UGC as an 'expert' body is a blunder. The whole case is that of a club of powerful incompetent people pitted against hapless students.

20 Oct 2013

Views of Honble Judge K.S.Radhakrishnan Panickar
Regarding Larger Bench / Smaller Bench practice in Supreme Court
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 2 December, 2010

Para 149……….The analysis of English and Indian Law clearly leads to the irresistible conclusion that not only the judgment of a larger strength is binding on a judgment of smaller strength but the judgment of a co-equal strength is also binding on a Bench of judges of co-equal strength…………….
Para 150……….In case there is no judgment of a Constitution Bench or larger Bench of binding nature and if the court doubts the correctness of the judgments by two or three judges, then the proper course would be to request Hon'ble the Chief Justice to refer the matter to a larger Bench of appropriate strength………….

Sudarshan Damodar Solakni
14 Oct 2013

An Open Letter to UGC Regarding "NET"

Date: Saturday 14-10-2013

The Deputy Secretary
NET Division, University Grants Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi- 110002

Subject: Issues Related to UGC - NET

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to bring some points to your notice regarding NET. Currently, UGC’s position regarding the examination is quite confusing, sometime it declares that it is mandatory to have NET to be eligible for a lectureship post and sometimes it contradicts its own rule. The quality of the examination system and evaluation is getting more and more absurd. The recent cut off marks, the pass percentage, the court cases, and the cry of the students have added more difficulties in the process. Let me make it more explicit.

First, the validity of the examination itself is questionable. Does qualifying this examination distinguish one candidate from other in terms of teaching and research? Kindly consider the point and think of it. What is the idea behind conducting the examination once in every six months when it does not have the much prevalent value?

Second, UGC has to understand that NET is not a competitive examination like Civil Services or other; rather it is an eligibility test. By bringing the cut off marks, UGC is making NET a competitive examination. The top 15% strata have brought more controversy in it. Since, NET is a qualifying examination, there is no point setting such percentage limitations and cut off marks. It should have a fixed pass mark according to subject and category rather than this cut off and layer. For example just because lots of people clear class X, XI or graduation exams, will some examining body say that only the top 15% should be considered as qualified and will be awarded degree and sorry to others ‘please try next year’?

Coming to the job perspectives, if I agree on UGC’s proposal of the top 15% as eligible, I would like to ask, does UGC is in a position to guarantee job to all of them? If not, then what is the point? I would like to advice, qualify all those who appear for the NET exam with minimum pass mark and send them to the jobmarket, as they have to face a second round competition in job selection interview. Believe me; our education bodies will earn good revenue from students by selling job application form to the NET qualified candidates who seek job rather than selling NET forms in every six months!

Thus, I think it is a pertinent problem and many students are in this perplexed situation. Now, let us see the other dimensions of the top 15% rule. Many students have qualified NET earlier and wrote the latest exam too hoping for JRF. If we think, some of these students are good enough or acquainted with this exam format and end up qualifying NET again instead of JRF. Therefore, obviously they will come in top 15% and will qualify NET again and some other will be out of the opportunity. Previously it happened too and there is no meaning to award NET several times to the same candidate. Even though some students qualify NET many times in a subject there is no credit for it in job. I request UGC not to award NET to those candidates who have qualified it earlier in the same subject. Yes, UGC has to ponder and sort out this issue of those people. Further, for this I would like to put forward my suggestion. Please create one more option in the NET application form so that the students can apply and be evaluated like this: a) only JRF (those who qualified NET earlier), b) NET & JRF both, c) only NET. Now, we have three options.

Finally, the key of the exam is quite controversial because hardly there are any clarifications or justifications happen. It seems whatever the paper setter/s or key setter/s say/s to UGC, they just agree upon it without any cross check. Because I have noticed questions that are of doubt, feed backed or contested hardly change. The significant point is UGC cannot have a national level examination with ‘validity less paper’ and ‘wrong answer key’, or whatever the paper setter says may not be ultimate in this regard, due to all these issues and irregularities students suffer and become victim of these kinds of carelessness. Yes, there is problem with the feedback system too. Anyone can give feedback for other and it is open, it can be misused. Regarding this, I request to contact and see the format of the feedback APSET has created, which is good and safe enough.

Finally, I hope UGC got my points that may be of some use and can be worked on. Please be a responsible body as you deal with the higher education in this country.

Copy to:
The Chairman, UGC
Secretary, UGC
All Commission Members, UGC

Yours faithfully
Sudarshan Damodar Solanki

anupam bharti
08 Oct 2013

In June 2012 more than 15 courts ruled out ugc but supreme court overruled their judgments but you think 15 judges are not intelligent as the 2 judges of supreme court are .

03 Oct 2013

ugc result of june 2012 is very unsatisfactory for us.It is not justification,because the result is just like political game where a politician annoncement before election and after election made totally different and create dispute and confusion.we request to ugc please do'nt break our faith. we also request to honourable supreme court to please study our case extensively because there may be two sides of a single coin.

29 Sep 2013

It is true that UGC has committed blunder in June 2012 NET exam. But it is not after the exam. The blunder was committed at the commission meeting that allowed change of pattern in the Paper III. Such change require a well considered mandate from experts and should not be done to the whims and fancies of the members as clearly prescribed in UGC Act of 1956. It is absurd of UGC to allow change of pattern by a casual decision and then doing 'Damage Control' of its effect with a hurriedly constituted supposed to be an 'Expert Committee' that gave a very ambiguous moderation scheme. The whole exam has been conducted in an unconstitutional manner and hence the best way to resolve this is to scrap that exam and conduct it fresh again in a fit manner.

29 Sep 2013

It is true that UGC has committed blunder in June 2012 NET exam. But it is not after the exam. The blunder was committed at the commission meeting that allowed change of pattern in the Paper III. Such change require a well considered mandate from experts and should not be done to the whims and fancies of the members as clearly prescribed in UGC Act of 1956. It is absurd of UGC to allow change of pattern by a casual decision and then doing 'Damage Control' of its effect with a hurriedly constituted supposed to be an 'Expert Committee' that gave a very ambiguous moderation scheme. The whole exam has been conducted in an unconstitutional manner and hence the best way to resolve this is to scrap that exam and conduct it fresh again in a fit manner.

26 Sep 2013

If UGC think Minimum criteria students have no quality then what is the quality of people those who passed in the supplementary result ?

University Grants Commission (UGC) on 12 November 2012 declared the supplementary result for UGC NET and JRF which was conducted on 24 June 2012. A total of 15178 candidates have provisionally qualified in the supplementary result of which 1685 have cleared the test for award of JRF (Junior Research Fellowship) and 13493 are eligible for lectureship.

In some subjects those who are not qualified the minimum criteria mentioned at the time of notification included in the new supplementary result and got UGC NET and the people who had not even passed before now have got JRF.!!!

In some subjects Person who got less than the minimum criteria is eligible but a person who got 64 .9% is not suitable in lectureship ?What is the logic behind this system of quality ?

How they fix the quality of each subject without a subject expert opinion ?Or Committee members are experts in all the 72 subjects ?
The ultimate solution is to publish a result on the basis of Minimum criteria fixed at the time of notification.

26 Sep 2013

The judgement by SC (so called lawmakers) is itself against the constitution. There are many loopholes in the case and the students are right. Any eligibility examination can not have this much of autocracy where there are various mistakes done by UGC to justify its previous mistakes. How can there be two examination criteria that also after declaration of results (first after 1 day of declaration and second after 3 months of declaration). And the institution which is supposed to be the highest in maintaining the education standards manipulate its own decision and unethically fails students. Students with 38% as per the SC judgement are passed and 64.9% are failed. Can ever be a subjectwise criteria for assessing the quality? in Computer Sciences they say if you are having 50% you are eligible for scholarship and in Management for scholarship it is >70%. The institution is full of corrupt officials and the so called experts sitting there are not capable enough to handle the knowledge boom in the society. Many cases have been listed in different high courts against their rules and regulations made for M phil and PhD also. They make rules, pass their wards and put that rule book in self. This is the real situation of higher education in India where the law shy away and say that it is the matter of education. and this is why we don't have any institution listed in top 200 yet.. Least developed countries have institutions better placed in comparison to us..

Varun Murali
25 Sep 2013

SC can not give a decision that UGC can change the qualifying criteria anytime even after result declared. In June 2013 Net Exam qualifying criteria was declared after declaring the result. it is just like India won the match but after one day BCC says NO India do not won as the criteria has been changed over night now India needs 150runs more. as Per BCC India has to make more run. Tomorrow +12 result were out all the student are happy suddenly one day after CBSE board says they have increase passing % from 40% is increase to 65%. those student got 65% and above are passed. other Sorry. how much injustice we have to bear. All of India hope is SC here where SC gives this kind of blind decision. were is the Justice in INDIA. WE DEMAND OUR RIGHTS. WE NEED JUSTICE

25 Sep 2013

In SLP 19933/2013 ( UGC June NET 2012 Case ) Honble Judge.Radha Krishnan says “ 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.” As per the Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284.

But this Concept was overruled by the same Supreme Court in
*** All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Others (2009) 11 SCC 726 Bench: R.V. Raveendran, G.S. Singhvi ***

And the same was followed in
1) The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Ors. : AIR 2010 SC 1285;
Bench: (Former Chief Justice of India) K.G. Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma, B.S. Chauhan

2) Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors. : (2010) 8 SCC 372;
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, T.S. Thakur

3) State of H.P. and Ors. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh : (2011) 6 SCC 597.
Bench: (Chief Justice of India) P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan

4) State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. Vs. K. Shyam Sunder and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 6015-6027, 6028, 6029, 6031 and 6032 of 2011 Decided on 9-8-2011 Historical Judgement Regarding The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education [Samacheer Kalvi Thittam]
Bench: J.M. Panchal, Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan

Ashok Bhatt
25 Sep 2013

It is highly important for the higher education system to get best talent to impart quality education......A senior professor at the University of Delhi & Raziya Parvin, Assistant Professor, Madras University.......Who is more Talented ? student who got 64% Marks or Those who Got 45 or 50%??? Please Clarify?

Prof N.G.Kannan
25 Sep 2013

The Judgement is erroneous for those who have taken the June 2012 exam for 'Lectureship only'. What is stated by the UGC in the notification as observed in the article by the Professor of Delhi University holds only for those taking the exam for 'JRF and eligibility for lectureship' as it is evident from his own observation. All the victims belong to the category of students taking the NET for 'Lectureship only'. It is not the practice for several years at UGC to decide final qualifying criteria before declaration of result for 'Lectureship only' aspirants. Therefore the aspirants have definite scope in their review provided the lawyer presented this error in a manner to deliver the right meaning of the things to the bench.

However it is also absurd that SLP is just accepted and so petition is still alive. The SLP has been allowed and hence the Order also has been made out simultaneously by the bench for the civil appeal. Hence the victims have to file their review at the earliest

25 Sep 2013

Any criteria should be made public before holding exams. It should be similar to All India Civil Services !

Dr G Damodar
25 Sep 2013

The verdict of SC stating that courts shall keep their jurisdiction off as the issues fall within the experts' domain will allow UGC, AICTE and other bodies to act more objectively. These bodies are known for their impartial and honest functioning taking the suggestions of the experts.