High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-06-10Petition allowed; entitlement to benefit of the...

Byni K.B. v. University Grants Commission

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 14571 of 2013 (V)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; petitioner declared to have cleared NET under the earlier notification; directed to issue NET certificates within one month from copy of judgment, subject to curing any defects noted by respondents; outcome remains subject to any successful writ appeal by the UGC, in which case the declaratory law may be applied accordingly to both sides.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; entitlement to benefit of the declaratory judgment; NET clearance declared; certificates to be issued within one month; potential applicability of declaratory law if UGC succeeds in appeal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Byni K.B.

Respondents

The University Grants Commission represented by the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi
The Coordinator, UGC National Eligibility Test for Junior Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureship (June 2012), Office of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi
National Educational Testing (NET) Bureau, University Grants Commission, New Delhi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Kaleeswaram Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Krishnamoorthy, CGC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns eligibility for appointment as Lecturer via the National Eligibility Test (NET). The University Grants Commission (UGC) notified the NET norms, including minimum marks for papers I–III and later introduced a total aggregate qualifying criterion, just days before the NET results were to be declared. The petitioner, Byni K.B., contends that these mid-course changes disadvantaged candidates who were not informed of the revised criteria, and thus could not qualify under the earlier notified norms. She relies on a series of linked writ petitions culminating in a common judgment of this Court on 17/12/2012 in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases, which held that category-wise qualifying criteria for lectureship were not sustainable and directed the issuance of NET certificates to those who had cleared under the notification applicable at the time. The UGC argues hardship and contemplates a writ appeal; interim orders exist. The High Court frames the issue as a declaratory legal matter and examines precedents, including K. Manjusree, Dr. Cyril Johnson, Jayachandran, and Ashwani Kumar, to hold that rules of selection cannot be altered after the process has begun. It distinguishes a recent Apex Court decision (Civil Appeal Nos. 4959–4962 of 2011) on viva voce criteria. Ultimately, the petition is allowed, declaring the petitioner to have cleared NET and directing the issuance of certificates within one month, while cautioning about potential appellate)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine of declaratory judgments: a declaratory judgment is applicable to all similarly situated persons (Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar)
Rule that the rules of selection cannot be changed after commencement of the process of selection.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the UGC’s late change in NET qualifying norms—introducing an aggregate minimum and altering the method of reckoning—was not disclosed in the original notification or advertisement and violates the fairness principle governing recruitment. She had crossed the per-paper minimums for Papers I–III under the notified scheme; the mid-course modification prejudices her and other similarly situated candidates. Citing the court’s decision in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases, she seeks protection under the declaratory judgment that such mid-stream changes are impermissible. The petitioner also stresses that the declaratory relief should apply universally to all who satisfied the original criteria, not only those named in the prior case. She relies on decisions such as K. Manjusree, Dr. Cyril Johnson, Jayachandran, and Ashwani Kumar to support non-variation of selection norms post-commencement.

Contentions of Respondents

The UGC contends that adjusting qualifying marks and introducing an aggregate criterion soon before results are necessary to uphold quality standards and fairness in comparison. It argues the relief would cause hardship to the UGC and that the matter may be subject to appeal. While acknowledging the prior declaratory framework, the UGC maintains that the current petition raises distinct considerations and cautions that extending the declaratory relief could disrupt ongoing or future processes. It points to a relevant Apex Court judgment on viva voce criteria (Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011) and distinguishes it on facts, arguing that it is not directly applicable since the changes in question relate to advertisements and notifications rather than binding rules applicable at the time of the examination.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another	2008(3) SCC 512	Positive	Used to support that the rules of selection cannot be changed after commencement of the process.
Dr. Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others	2009(4) KHC 404(FB)	Positive	Full Bench decision reinforcing stable selection norms and non-mid-process changes.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	2010 (4) KLT 49	Positive	Support for the principle that selection rules cannot be altered once the process has begun.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others	1997(2) SCC 1	Positive	Declaratory judgments apply to all similarly situated persons.
Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	N/A	Distinguished	Apex Court viva voce criterion decision distinguished because it addressed advertisement-to-rule alignment not present here.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Byni K.B. v. University Grants Commission and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/20TH JYAISHTA 1935 ## WP(C).No. 14571 of 2013 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- BYNI K.B, D/O.BABU K.K., KOKKUVAYIL HOUSE, P.O.PANANGAD, KODUNGALLUR THRISSUR - 680 665. ## BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REP. BY THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE COORDINATOR, UGC NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR JUNIOR FELLOWSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP JUNE 2012 OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING (NET) BUREAU, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI - 110 001. ## BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14571 of 2013 (V) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTIFICATION. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CHANGED CRITERIA PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE ON 19/9/2012. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS. //True copy// P.A.to Judge uj. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: W.P.(C). No. 14571 of 2013 ...................................................... Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** Whether 'Rules of the game' could be changed during the middle of the game, is the issue involved in this case. 2. The matter relates to acquisition of the requisite qualification for appointment as 'Lecturer' by clearing the 'National Eligibility Test' ( NET for short). The test was notified to be conducted by the UGC, stipulating the norms as to the particulars of the papers, the minimum marks to be obtained and such other details. The examination was scheduled to be conducted on 24.06.2012. 3. The petitioner participated in the examination and according to her she has crossed the hurdle, with regard to the minimum marks prescribed and notified. But the UGC, just a few days before the declaration of the result, sought to change the norms, whereby some modification was made with regard to the minimum qualifying marks and mode of reckoning the same; introducing the 'total/ aggregate minimum' as well, apart from W.P.C. No.14571 of 2013 -2- the minimum marks to be secured for each paper. This was quite to the disadvantage of persons like the petitioner, who were never told of such a course earlier, as a result of which, they could not get the clearance. It was in the said circumstance, that similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing several writ petitions, which were considered together and a common judgment was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 17/12/2012 ( W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 & connected cases). 4. As per the said judgment, the course pursued by the UGC was held as not correct or sustainable and accordingly, the impugned proceeding stipulating the category-wise qualifying criteria for lectureship was set aside. It was declared by this Court, that all the petitioners, who had obtained the separate minimum prescribed in the notification for Papers I, II and III, had cleared the 'NET' and appropriate follow up action was directed to be taken, to issue certificates to them, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for similar benefit, as given by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. 5. Sri.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for W.P.C. No.14571 of 2013 -3- the UGC, entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and made a submission that the respondents are very much aggrieved of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge and that steps are being taken to file writ appeal. It is pointed out that, if the relief sought for is granted, it will cause severe hardship to the UGC. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in this case, interim order has been passed, in terms of the final verdict as mentioned hereinbefore. 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the judgment already passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases is purely based on the question of law, as there is no dispute with regard to the facts and figures. The question of law has been considered and answered in favour of the petitioner and a declaration of law has been made by this Court. The Court also considered the scope and applicability of judicial precedents cited from both the sides particularly, the law declared by the Apex Court in **K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another** ( 2008(3) SCC 512) , the Full Bench of this Court in **Dr.Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others** ( 2009(4) KHC 404( FB) and a Division W.P.C. No.14571 of 2013 -4- ## Bench of this Court in **Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala** ( 2010 (4) KLT 49) (to which I was also a member), in support of the case projected by the petitioner, to the effect that the rules of selection could not be changed after commencement of the process of selection. The reliance sought to be placed from the part of the UGC with reference to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011 with regard to the question of minimum qualifying marks for 'viva voce', introduced just two or three days before the commencement of the oral tests, though it was not stipulated in the advertisement issued by the PSC, was also considered therein and it was distinguished for the reason that, such stipulation was very much incorporated in the relevant rules, but omitted to be incorporated in the advertisement and hence held as not applicable. It was after considering the rival contentions and also the binding judicial precedents, that a finding was rendered, leading to the judgment as aforesaid. 7. As mentioned hereinbefore, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is rather declaratory in nature. It has been held by the Apex Court that, if the verdict is of declaratory W.P.C. No.14571 of 2013 -5- character, it shall be made applicable to all who are similarly situated; irrespective of the fact whether they are parties to the verdict or not. This is reported in **Ashwani Kumar and others** **v. State of Bihar and others** (1997(2) SCC 1). Since the petitioner seeks for the benefit of such declaratory judgment, this Court does not find any reason to take a different course. 8. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, holding that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of the judgment passed in W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 & connected cases. The petitioner, who has obtained the separate minimum marks prescribed in the notification for Papers I, II and III, is declared as cleared the 'NET'. Appropriate follow up action shall be taken by the concerned respondent to issue certificates to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, subject to curing the defects if any pointed out, from the part of the respondents. 9. Considering the fact that petitioner is being given the benefit of the above declaratory judgment, it is also necessary to put the petitioner on alert, as to the steps stated as being taken by the UGC to challenge the basic judgment, by way of Writ W.P.C. No.14571 of 2013 -6- Appeal. 10. In the above circumstances, it is made clear that, if the writ appeal being filed by the UGC comes to be allowed in favour of the UGC, naturally the law declared by the Division Bench will be made applicable to the petitioner herein, as the benefit of declaration will stand equally applicable to both the sides. Taking note of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, the petitioner in this case is directed to furnish an additional set of the writ petition to the learned Standing Counsel forthwith, to save time in respect of the procedural formalities to be completed. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.** Kp/-