Dr. Rajesh Komath v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019 (V)** ## **PETITIONER:** **DR.RAJESH KOMATH** **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND HEAD, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, MALLUSSERY P. O., PULLARIKUNNU, KOTTAYAM. (AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KANIVU, APRA - 71, MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER SMT.S.JESSIN SMT.C.C.BINDHYA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P. O., KOTTAYAM-686 560, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR** - **2 DR. A. M. THOMAS PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATION AND POLITICS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P. O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560** - **3 DR. ABHILASH BABU KAIKUZHYTHADATHIL, EDAVETTY P. O., IDUKKI - 685588** - **4 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY** **R1 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL R3 BY ADV. SRI.JUSTINE JACOB R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR R4 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 2 ## **P.V.ASHA J.** ## **-----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.11778 of 2019** **-------------------------------------** Dated this the 16[th ] day of August, 2019 ## **J U D G M E N T** The selection and appointment to the post of Associate Professor in the School of Social Science in the Mahatma Gandhi University (‘University’ for short) is under challenge in this writ petition. The complaint of the petitioner is that the 3[rd] respondent was ranked No.1 only because marks were awarded to him twice for the very same fellowship, while the same parameter is not adopted in the case of petitioner. 2. The University issued Ext.P1 notification on 16.12.2017 inviting applications from among qualified hands for appointment to the post of Associate Professors in various disciplines. The petitioner submitted application for appointment as Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences against the one vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste community. The qualification was as prescribed in UGC Regulations, 2010 as amended from time **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 3 to time. It was further notified that appointments would be made as per UGC norms. As per Ext.P2-UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (‘UGC Regulation 2010’ for short), the qualification for appointment to the post of Associate Professor is as given in Regulation 4.3.0 as follows: (i) Good academic record with a Ph.D Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant disciplines. (ii) A Master's Degree with at least 55% marks (or equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed). (iii) A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University College or Accredited Research Institution/industry excluding the period of Ph.D research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or research/policy papers. (iv) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology-mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students. (v) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Appendix III. 3. The UGC Regulation 2010 were amended by **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 4 Regulation 2016. Petitioner claims that he was having 10 years of teaching experience as Assistant Professor in the School of Social Sciences under the 1[st] respondent University, but the Selection Committee selected the 3[rd] respondent. 4. Table II B of Appendix III provides that the consolidated minimum API score for direct recruitment of Associate Professors shall be 300 points under category II and III. Apart from that it provides for selection committee criteria /weightage (Total weightage =100) and set apart marks under different heads as follows: |a|Academic background|20.00%| |---|---|---| |b|Research Performance based on API<br>score and quality of<br>publication|40.00%| |c|Assessment of domain knowledge and<br>teaching skill|20.00%| |d|Interview Performance|20.00%| 5. The petitioner points out that his verified API score in category II and III was 417.5 whereas that of the 3[rd] respondent was 344.5, as evident from Exts.P6 and P7 application summary sheets. 6. Appendix III to UGC Regulations 2016 (Ext.P3) **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 5 provides for the manner in which API scores are to be computed. Appendix III contains various tables and various categories. Category III relates to Research and academic contributions. Academic contributions are subdivided under various subcategories IIIA to IIIF. The issue arising in this case relates to the components in category IIIE (i) which provides for the API score for Fellowships and awards as follows: |IIIE(1)|Fellowship/<br>awards|International award<br>/fellowship from academic bodies|International<br>award<br>/fellowship from<br>academic<br>bodies/associatio<br>ns|15 per award/15<br>per fellowship| |---|---|---|---|---| |||National Award/fellowship from<br>academic bodies|National<br>Award/fellowship<br>from<br>academic<br>bodies/associatio<br>ns|10 per award/10<br>per fellowship| |||State/University level award from<br>academic bodies|State/University<br>level award from<br>academic<br>bodies/associatio<br>ns|5 per award| 7. The marks awarded to petitioner for category IIIE(i) for award/fellowship, as seen from Ext.P4 score sheet is as given below: ## (b)Details of fellowship/award |Sl<br>No|Name of award/<br>fellowship|Internationa<br>l/state body|Award/<br>fellowship|Name of academic<br>body|Academic<br>body/<br>association|score|Verifie<br>d score| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|UGC<br>Teacher|National|Award|UGC|Academic|10|0| 6 ## **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** ||fellowship award<br>for<br>doctoral<br>thesis 2010||||body||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |2|Independent<br>Fellow of centre<br>for studies in<br>Developing<br>societies,Sarai,<br>New Delhi,2006|National|Award|Centre<br>for<br>studies<br>in<br>Developing<br>Societies, Sarai,<br>New Delhi|Academic<br>body|10|10| ## 8. Petitioner points out that he was not given marks for his UGC Teacher award and that he was entitled to 10 marks for the same. 9. In the case of the 3[rd] respondent the score sheet Ext.P5 shows the marks in category IIIE(i) as given below: ## (b) Details of fellowship/award |Sl<br>No|Name of award/<br>fellowship|Internatio<br>nal/nation<br>al/state<br>body|Award/<br>fellowship|Name<br>of<br>academic<br>body|Academic<br>body/<br>association|score|Verified<br>score| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Junior<br>Research<br>Fellowship|National|Fellowship|UGC|Academic<br>body|10|10| 10. Petitioner points out that UGC Teacher award is of more weightage than JRF. It is pointed out that marks were again earmarked for CSIR-ICAR-UGC-JRF for doing Ph. D under the head academic background, when it is already reckoned towards category III in order to arrive at the **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 7 verified API score. Thus the 3[rd] respondent got 3 marks towards JRF under the academic background. The UGC Teacher award given to the petitioner for undergoing Ph.D is not given any marks either under category III for calculating API score or under the head academic background. Contention of the petitioner is that marks need be awarded for the award for fellowship only under category III E and not under the academic background as otherwise it will amount to granting of double benefit. According to petitioner such double benefit for the very same component as given to the 3[rd] respondent is not provided in the UGC regulations. The University has included the following components in its template under the head academic background for which 20% marks are allotted: A)Academic background |Sl.<br>No.|Criteria|Maximum score|Score obtained| |---|---|---|---| ||Post graduation<br>for first 3 ranks subject to a maximum of<br>8 points<br>first rank:5 points<br>second rank:3 points<br>Third rank:2 points|5|| |2|CSIR-ICAR-UGC-JRF for doing Ph.D|3|| |3|Post doctoral fellowship subject to a<br>maximum of 8 points<br>international:5 points<br>National:3 points|8|| **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 8 4 Dsc/D.Lit/LLD other than honorary 4 Subtotal 20 11. Exts.P8 & P9 preliminary score sheets in respect of the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent respectively, would show that petitioner is not awarded any marks towards the CSIR-ICAR-UGC-JRF for doing Ph.D, though he was given UGC teacher award whereas in Ext P9 score sheet in respect of 3[rd] respondent he was given 3 marks. Thus on conversion of the verified API score marks towards Research performance based verified API score and quality of publications for which 40% marks are awarded, the score of petitioner was converted as 10.44 out of maximum score of 40. In the case of 3[rd] respondent it was arrived at 8.6. Merely on the basis of 3 marks awarded to the 3[rd] respondent towards his JRF, for which 10 marks were already reckoned in the 40% marks for verified API score, the total marks in his case in Ext.P9 preliminary score sheet came to 43.65 out of 100 whereas the total marks in the case of petitioner was 41.44 out of 100. In Ext.P8, petitioner was awarded 5 marks for academic background, **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 9 10.44 towards API Score in category 3, (the total score of 417.4 secured by him was converted 10.44 out of 40), for Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skill, he was awarded 20 marks; for Interview Performance 11 marks and the total score was 41.44. In the case of the 3[rd] respondent the marks awarded for academic background was 3 out of 20, he did not get any marks in respect of Post Graduation or Post Doctoral Fellowship or any Honorary Degree. Three marks are awarded for JRF for doing Ph.D. He got 8.6 under 40% category, 19.05 for Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skill, 13 marks for Interview Performance and thus the total marks was 43.65. 12. The only question therefore which arises for consideration is whether the awarding of marks towards JRF acquired by the 3[rd] respondent under the head academic background was warranted when he was already awarded 10 marks under the head of research performance based on API score and quality of publication in category III of the Appendix III for which 40% marks is earmarked. 13. Based on such selection the 3[rd] respondent was **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 10 appointed as per Ext.P10 order 03.07.2018. Petitioner had challenged the selection and appointment of the 3[rd] respondent, filing W.P.(C).No.22540 of 2018, which was disposed of as per Ext.P11 judgment setting aside the selection of the 3[rd] respondent. 14. The university thereafter issued Ext.P12 order on 09.04.2019. The selection committee which met on 29.01.2019 to rework the selection, found that there was no omission or discrepancy in the scores awarded to the petitioner and 3[rd] respondent and therefore the criteria did not require any revision as it is made in accordance with UGC Rules and Regulations. Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P12 order. 15. The first respondent University as well as the 3[rd] respondent have filed separate counter affidavits. According to the first respondent, this Court has already held that the selection committee can determine the criteria. Selection committee examined the matter based on the direction in Ext.P11 judgment. It is stated that the UGC has not defined the components for assigning scores **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 11 for any other criteria than for the research performance based on API scores and publications for which 40% marks is earmarked. Therefore it is left to the discretion of the University to decide the components for all other criteria. It is stated that the selection committee which met pursuant to the direction in Ext.P11 judgment considered the selection criteria and found that no component having equal weightage which has already been considered for calculating API score was excluded for assessment of academic performance. The petitioner was not assigned any marks for UGC Teacher Fellowship for Doctoral thesis which is otherwise known as Faculty Development Programme (FDP) as it is only in service quality enhancement programme facilitated by UGC to enhance the qualifications of the teacher already in service. It is stated that the selection committee found that it could not be equated to JRF awarded by UGC based on a national level competitive examination conducted by the UGC. It was further stated that petitioner registered himself as a Ph.D student on 20.10.2008 under the (FDP) Faculty **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 12 Development Programme (formerly (FIP) Faculty Improvement Programme). It is stated that the objective of FDP is to provide an opportunity for teachers in Universities/Colleges to pursue their academic/research activities leading to the award of M.Phil/Ph.D, which are essential qualifications for appointment as Assistant Professor. It is stated that this UGC teacher Fellowship cannot be treated as either equivalent to or higher than UGC JRF, awarded on the basis of National Level Competitive Examination. It is also pointed out that petitioner got UGC Teacher Fellowship without appearing in any competitive examination and it is available to 20% of the teaching staff. It is stated that this Court has in Ext.P11 judgment made it clear that the selection committee can give reasons if any for omitting the fellowship undertaken by the petitioner for assessing academic performance. It is stated that the selection committee has in Ext.R1(b) minutes explained the reasons why FDP cannot be equated with JRF for academic performance. **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** **==> picture [12 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 16. The 3[rd] respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that 3[rd] respondent appeared in a nationwide competitive test (NET), and UGC awarded JRF in order to pursue research activities leading to award of Ph.D. It is stated that clause 13.1 of the Ext.R3(b) bulletin published by UGC would show that only 6% of the candidates who appeared in both the papers and secured at least 40% marks in aggregate for general category and with 35% marks in aggregate in the case of candidates belonging to reserved category would be eligible for JRF. Producing Ext.R3(a) Guidelines for the Scheme of Faculty Development Programme for Colleges for the 12[th] plan 2012-17, it is stated that the award of teacher fellowship for doing M.Phil/Ph.D is made on the basis of a selection made from among the teachers, who are permanent/confirmed or appointed on a regular basis in case of Government Colleges and having the Master’s Degree with minimum 55% marks and having 3 years of teaching experience and who are registered for Ph.D. The teacher will continue to receive full salary during the period of teacher **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 14 fellowship. Under clause 3.2.1, it is provided that only 20% of the permanent teachers are eligible to avail teacher fellowship from an institution at any point of time. Therefore it is stated that the 3[rd] respondent was awarded JRF, after qualifying in a National Level competitive test whereas the petitioner was given the UGC teacher award based on a selection from among 20% of the teachers of the very same institution. Therefore it is stated that there is nothing illegal in awarding marks or providing for additional marks for candidates with JRF. 17. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit reiterating his contention against granting double benefit to 3[rd] respondent while his UGC Teacher fellowship is not recognized either for determining API score or for determining the marks for academic performance. 18. On consideration of the rival contentions, it is necessary to have a look at the findings in Ext.P11 judgment. In para 9 of the judgment it was held as follows: “9.Academic bodies are expert bodies. They can fix criteria consistent with standards in higher education. A Junior Research **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 15 Fellow was given three points and a Fellow was given “Nil” points. No logical reasons have been stated before this court for such an award of points. It may be true that the University is competent to define the component for academic performance. But it cannot do it in a selective manner. There is no bar to include a component which was already taken for assessment for API score, as a criteria for assessing academic performance. UGC has given complete freedom to the University to design norms related to categories for assessment by the selection Committee. However it is to be noted that a component having equal weightage and which have already been considered for API score is seen not included for assessment of academic performance. The 4[th] respondent obtained 10 points for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) in API score. The petitioner scored 20 points on the same component for his fellowship. However that was not considered by the selection committee. When a component of equal weightages is taken into consideration by the selection committee, it is for them to explain why the fellowship undertaken by the petitioner was not considered for assessment under academic performance. This genuinely raises a doubt on the criteria adopted by the selection committee. Therefore I am of the view that the selection of the 4[th] respondent requires reconsideration. The selection committee has to rework the criteria for awarding marks under academic performance. This court only interferes with the selection under the above head for the reason that a component having equal weightage had been omitted by the selection committee. The selection committee can give reasons for such omissions. If the selection committee is of the view that the component of the same weightage requires assessment under the head of academic performance, they are free to award marks to the petitioner. This court does not want to interfere with any other procedure. Thus, setting aside the selection of the 4[th] respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the selection committee to rework the selection in the light of discussions as above.” **==> picture [379 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** the judgment that the petitioner scored 20 points on the same component for his fellowship is not correct as evident from Ext P4. It is also an admitted case that UGC Teacher fellowship of petitioner was not reckoned to calculate his API score. On the other hand the claim of the petitioner is that he was entitled to be awarded 10 **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 16 marks for the UGC Teacher fellowship given to him for undergoing Ph.D. Alternatively his contention is that it should have been considered either for calculating API score or at least towards academic performance and in either case he would have ranked 1. 20. The selection committee has in Ext.R3(b) minutes found that the petitioner was not given any score for the Faculty Improvement Programme (FIP) as it was an inservice quality enhancement programme facilitated by UGC to enhance the qualification of a teacher already in service. They found that FIP cannot be equated to JRF which is awarded based on a national level competitive examination. They also found that UGC Regulations specifically provides for awarding of 10 marks for JRF, while calculating API score. 21. Petitioner does not have a case that his selection for FIP was based on any nationwide competitive test. There is no specific provision also in the UGC Regulations which provides for points for the UGC Teacher award for undergoing Ph.D, under the FDS/FIP Programme. **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 17 Ext.R3(b) would show that 20% of teaching staff of an institution are sent on FIP without any competitive and at any rate a nation wide test. At the same time, 3[rd] respondent got the JRF, after qualifying himself in a National Level Test. 22. The selection committee consisting of academic experts have given reasons for including JRF and in not including UGC teacher award for calculating API score. Moreover, this Court has already found in Ext.P11 judgment that the University has the discretion to define the component for assigning score under all the heads other than those for calculating minimum API score. It was also found that there is no bar in including a component which was reckoned for assessment of API score again for assessment of academic performance, as the UGC has given complete freedom to the University to design norms related to categories of assessment. In the light of the aforesaid observations in Ext.P11 judgment and when it is admitted that the component which petitioner claims was not reckoned for any marks in any head, there cannot be any **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 18 interference in the matter. It is already found that there is no bar in including the item under academic performance. The selection committee has found that the UGC Teacher award (FIP) cannot be equated to that of JRF. It is stated in Ext.P12 that the selection committee examined the API score calculation and preliminary score sheet of both the candidates included in the rank list and made the following observation: “1. No component which is having equal weightage and which has already been considered for API score been excluded for assessment of academic performance.” 23. This Court has already held that the selection committee is free to determine the criteria for awarding marks under different heads and that reasons shall be stated for excluding any such criteria. Therefore the contention raised by the petitioner that 3[rd] respondent was given double benefits is unsustainable. 24. It is settled law, that the courts under Article 226 should not interfere with the selections made by duly constituted selection committee with academic experts except in the case of violation of statutory rules or **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 19 regulations or or ordinance (see the judgments in **University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao** [AIR 1965 SC 491], **J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University** [(1980) 3 SCC 418], **Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan** [(1990) 1 SCC 305], **Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal** [(1990) 2 SCC 746], **M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC** [(2008) 2 SCC 119], etc). Such a body of experts have found that FDP/FIP fellowship and JRF are distinct and marks cannot be awarded for UGC teacher award/fellowship of petitioner for undergoing Ph.D under FIP either for calculating API score in category III or for assessment of academic performance. There is no allegation of _mala fides_ also. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE** AS **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 20 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR THE POST OF ASST. PROFESSOR DATED 16.12.2017 BEARING NO.AD.II(I)/5038/2017/ADMN(3)** - **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF UGC REGULATION, 2010** - **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF UGC REGULATION, 2016** - **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET OF THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET OF 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRELIMINARY SCORE SHEET OF PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRELIMINARY SCORE SHEET OF 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03.07.2018** - **EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 22540/18 DATED 26.11.2018** - **EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.04.2019 BEARING NO.1541/AD.A2/2019/MGU** **EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED** **WP(C).NO.11778 OF 2019(V)** 21 ## **08.04.2019** - **EXHIBIT P13 (A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 08.04.2019** - **EXHIBIT P14** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GUIDELINES FOR THE SPECIAL SCHEME OF FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 2007-12.** - **EXHIBIT P15** - **PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF LETTER OF UGC TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING F.NO.13-7/2010(SU-1) DATED 20/7/2010 REGARDING AWARD OF TEACHER FELLOWSHIP TO THE PETITIONER.** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT-R1(A)** - **A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.07.2016 OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) AS PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA (EXTRAORDINARY) DATED 11.07.2016.** - **EXHIBIT-R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR THE SELECTION OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF THE UNIVERSITY, CONVENED ON 29.01.2019 PURSUANT TO EXHIBIT-R1(A) JUDGMENT.** - **EXHIBIT-R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE SPECIAL SCHEME OF FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR COLLEGES FOR THE TWELFTH PLAN 2012-17 ISSUED BY THE U.G.C.** ## **EXHIBIT-R3(B)** - **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE INFORMATION BULLETIN PUBLISHED BY THE U.G.C FOR NTA-UGC NET FOR JUNE, 2019**