UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION Vs. ROOPAKALA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the respondents in the writ petitions. The leading petition was W.P.(C)No. 26468/2012. The respondents/writ petitioners approached the learned single Judge challenging Exhibit P3, wherein change of criteria so far as the National Eligibility Test (NET) was concerned came to be issued by the appellants. All the writ petitioners appeared for the NET held on 24.06.2012, for which they had applied on the basis of Exhibits P1 and P2. It is not in dispute that the criteria for a pass is indicated at Exhibit P1 and that the test comprises of questions of objective type. After conducting the test, the answer key came to be published, thereby results were made known to the candidates who appeared for the NET. Challenging that there was no justification for the appellants/respondents to change the criteria for a pass by enhancing the total percentage required and it is arbitrary; the writ petitioners approached the court in several writ petitions. Learned single Judge by common judgment dated 17.12.2012 allowed the writ petitions rejecting the contentions raised by the University Grants Commission ('UGC' for short) opining that enhancing the aggregate marks as 65%, 60% and 55% for the three categories of candidates just before the announcement of results was not justified. Further, a direction was given to issue certificates to the candidates within one month. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, these writ appeals came to be filed by the UGC.

(2.) The view expressed by the learned single Judge of this Court was considered favourably by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, wherein, the court ruled that there is lack of competency for the UGC to fix the aggregate marks as the final qualifying criteria, subsequent to the candidates obtaining minimum marks which was prescribed as per the notification dated 06.12.2012. The judgment was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8355/2013 and connected cases. By judgment dated 19.09.2013, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the action of UGC, thereby the appeals were allowed. The Apex Court pointing out the power of UGC to set the standard of qualifying criteria opined that the UGC, as an expert body, has been entrusted with the general duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. UGC has also got the power to define the qualification that should ordinarily be required for any person to be appointed as teaching staff of the University and to regulate the maintenance of standards and co-ordination of work and faculties in the Universities.

(3.) After referring to various earlier decisions of the Apex Court, i.e., University of Delhi v. Raj Singh, 1994 Supp3 SCC 516), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and others, 1996 10 SCC 536) and Annamalai University represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others, 2009 4 SCC 590), opined that the UGC in its obligation as contemplated under the UGC Act has exercised its statutory powers. Ultimately, opining that the candidates were not misled in any manner by the words "clearing the NET" in the notification, their Lordships held that clearing the final results, not merely passing in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, which is only the initial step, but not the final one. They also opined that the candidate should satisfy the final qualifying criteria laid down by the UGC, before declaration of results, to clear the NET examination.