PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners before this Court, who are five in number, were the candidates in the National Educational Test (NET) conducted by the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.), in the year 2012. They seek quashing of the results declared by the U.G.C. in respect of the said NET examination. They also seek quashing of the criteria of obtaining aggregate 65% marks in aggregate in all three papers for qualifying the NET examination and lastly to award 72% marks to petitioner No. 1. Shri Arvind Srivastava, counsel for the petitioners submitted that fixation of 65% marks in aggregate in all three papers is arbitrary and that there is no resolution of the U.G.C. for such fixation of the aggregate minimum marks. He then submits that the power conferred upon the U.G.C. to determine the minimum aggregate marks for passing the NET examination is un-canalized, therefore, arbitrary. He lastly submits that as per the brochure published by the U.G.C. for the NET examination in Clause 8, the minimum marks to be obtained in each of the three papers marked as paper Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were notified separately for each category of the candidates namely General, Other Backward Classes, Physically Handicapped and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe etc.

(2.) There is no dispute in respect of fixation of such qualifying marks, therefore, nothing further is required to be added. Under the second sub clause to the clause provided for the said minimum qualifying marks, it is further provided as follows:

(3.) It is in exercise of this power conferred under the brochure that the U.G.C. has determined 65% marks as the minimum aggregate in all the three papers for being declared qualified for J.R.F. and Lecturer-ship. It is, therefore, clear that 65% aggregate marks have been fixed for the NET examination only in respect of being declared qualified for JRF and Lecturer-ship. It is not necessary for the U.G.C. that any fresh resolution being made as suggested by the petitioner. The power to determine the minimum aggregate flows from the decision of the U.G.C. to hold the selections and the term notified in respect of the said examinations as above. Therefore, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has no substance.