High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-22Petitions allowed; the petitioners declared NET...

Dr. Salini N.C. v. University Grants Commission

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) Nos.2050, 2060, 2145, 2182, 2185 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-01-22
Court Decision / Holding: All W.P.(C) Nos.2050/2013 and connected petitions are allowed. Petitioners who had obtained separate minimum marks prescribed for Papers I, II, and III are declared NET-cleared, and the concerned respondents are directed to issue certificates within one month from receiving a copy of this judgment, subject to curing any defects pointed out. The court notes the declaratory nature of the prior judgment and emphasizes that if the UGC’s writ appeal succeeds, the law declared by the Division Bench would apply to all petitioners. The petitioners are to furnish an additional set of petitions to the Standing Counsel to expedite procedural formalities.
Final Disposition: Petitions allowed; the petitioners declared NET-cleared with certificates to be issued within one month; UGC warned about potential appeal and the declaratory judgment applying to all similarly situated individuals.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. Salini N.C. (Roll No. 32200679)

Respondents

University Grants Commission
Coordinator, University Grants Commission, National Eligibility Test for Junior Fellowship & Eligibility for Lectureship-June 2012
National Educational Testing (NET) Bureau, University Grants Commission

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Dr. K. P. Satheesan, Senior Advocate
• M. R. Jayaprasad, Advocate
• P. Mohandas, Advocate
• Anoop V. Nair, Advocate

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions concerns the validity of mid-course changes to the norms governing the National Eligibility Test (NET) for appointment as lecturers. The University Grants Commission (UGC) had scheduled the NET for 24 June 2012 and issued regulations specifying the papers, minimum marks, and other details. Petitioner(s) contend that, just before the result declaration, the UGC altered the qualifying norms by introducing a total aggregate minimum in addition to per-paper minima, a change not disclosed earlier and to their disadvantage. They had already met the initial criteria; the post-notice modification deprived them of clearance and affected similarly situated candidates. Earlier, a common judgment in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases held that the UGC’s category-wise minimum criteria were not sustainable and directed follow-up action to certify petitioners who had achieved the minimums for Papers I–III. The court observes that the challenge is largely one of law (whether rules can be changed mid-process) rather than facts, and relies on precedents such as KManjusree, Cyril Johnson, and Jayachandran to hold that selection rules cannot be altered after commencement. It differentiates a Supreme Court viva voce decision where advertisement did not reflect changes. The Court ultimately allows the petitions, holding petitioners who satisfied separate minima are NET-cleared and directs certificates within a month, while cautioning UGC about potential appeals and the declaratory nature of the earlier judgment applying to all similarly situated individuals.

Provisions of Law Cited

UGC Regulation 2010

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rules of selection cannot be changed after commencement of the process of selection.
Declaratory judgments bind all similarly situated persons irrespective of party status.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the UGC, instead of notifying the exact criteria in the advertisement, introduced a mid-course modification by adding a total aggregate minimum and altering the per-paper minima just before results, thereby altering the rules of the game after the process had commenced. They invoke established precedents that selection rules cannot be changed mid-process and rely on the earlier judgment in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases, which directed treatment of petitioners who had met the separate minima for Papers I–III as NET-cleared and issued certificates. They contend the changes were unforeseen and prejudicial to them, and that declaratory relief should apply to all similarly situated individuals, not merely the petitioners before the court.

Contentions of Respondents

The UGC contends that changing norms late in the process would cause hardship and undermine administrative decisions. It points to steps to file a writ appeal and notes that interim orders had been issued in several connected cases. While the UGC recognizes the need for uniform application, it argues that the landmark declaratory judgment cannot be extended without appeal, especially since viva voce-related adjustments in Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011 were not incorporated in the advertisement. The respondents maintain that the earlier Single Judge decision was law-based and should be tested on appeal, urging restraint in extending relief to all similarly situated without a final appellate determination.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another	2008(3) SCC 512	Positive	Cited to support the principle that rules of selection cannot be altered after initiation of the selection process.
Dr. Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others	2009(4) KHC 404 (FB)	Positive	Support for the proposition that selection rules cannot be changed mid-process.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	2010 (4) KLT 49	Positive	Division Bench opinion endorsing the principle against mid-process rule changes.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others	1997(2) SCC 1	Positive	Declaratory judgments bind all similarly situated persons; supports applying the declaratory relief broadly.
Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	Distinguished	Not applicable here because the changes were not reflected in the advertisement; distinguished for lack of incorporation in the advertisement.

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 Dr. Salini N.C. 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** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013/2ND MAGHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 2050 of 2013 (E)** ## **--------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **----------------------** **DR.SALINI N.C. (ROLL NO.32200679), THUSHARAM,EDACODE,NEMOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 020.** **BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** ## **1. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,NEW DELHI-110 002.** ## **2. THE CO-ORDINATOR,** **UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR JUNIOR FELLOWSHIP & ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP-JUNE 2012, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI-110 002.** **3. NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING (NET) BUREAU, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,NEW DELHI-110 002.** **R1TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY,SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2013 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.2060 OF 2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.2050/2013 E** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UGC REGULATION 2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **P2- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR THE TEST OF 24TH JUNE 2012.** **P3- TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **P4- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) Nos.2050, 2060, 2145, 2182, 2185 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22[nd] day of January, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Whether 'Rules of the game' could be changed during the middle of the game, is the issue involved in all these cases. 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 petitioners participated in the examination and according to them they have 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 W.P.(C)No.2050/2013 & connected cases 2 'total/ aggregate minimum' as well, apart from the minimum marks to be secured for each paper. This was quite to the disadvantage of persons like the petitioners, 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 petitioners in these writ petitions seek for similar benefit, as given by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. W.P.(C)No.2050/2013 & connected cases 3 5. Sri.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for 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 most of these cases, interim orders have 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 petitioners concerned 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 W.P.(C)No.2050/2013 & connected cases 4 Court in **Dr.Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others** ( 2009(4) KHC 404( FB) and a Division 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 petitioners, 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 W.P.(C)No.2050/2013 & connected cases 5 . learned Single Judge is rather declaratory in nature It has been held by the Apex Court that, if the verdict is of declaratory 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 petitioners seek for the benefit of such declaratory judgment, this Court does not find any reason to take a different course. 8. In the above circumstances, all these writ petitions are allowed, holding that the petitioners are entitled to have the benefit of the judgment passed in W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 & connected cases. The petitioners, who have obtained the separate minimum marks prescribed in the notification for Papers I, II and III, are declared as cleared the 'NET'. Appropriate follow up action shall be taken by the concerned respondent to issue certificates to them 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 petitioners are being given the W.P.(C)No.2050/2013 & connected cases 6 benefit of the above declaratory judgment, it is also necessary to put the petitioners on alert, as to the steps stated as being taken by the UGC to challenge the basic judgment, by way of Writ 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 all the petitioners 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 petitioners in all these cases are directed to furnish an additional set of the concerned 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** sv. W.P.(C)No.2050/2013 & connected cases 7 W.P.(C)No.2050/2013 & connected cases 8