High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions allowed; petitioners declared NE...
Gayathri V.M. and others v. University Grants Commission
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 312 of 2013 (L)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2013-01-03
- Court Decision / Holding
- All petitions are allowed. Petitioners are declared to have cleared the NET as per the separate minima prescribed for Papers I, II, and III, and appropriate action is to be taken to issue NET certificates within one month from receipt of this judgment, subject to any defects pointed out. The judgment relies on declaratory principles and notes that, if the UGC’s writ appeal succeeds, the law declared by the Division Bench would apply equally to all parties. The court also directs furnishing of an extra copy of the petition to the Standing Counsel to expedite procedures.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions allowed; petitioners declared NET-cleared; certificates to be issued within one month; caution that if writ appeal is allowed, the declaratory law may extend to all similarly situated.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Gayathri V.M.
- Haseena O M.
- Asha Padiyath P.H.
- Suhaima P.
- Soumya K.K.
Respondents
- University Grants Commission (UGC)
- National Educational Testing Bureau, University Grants Commission, New Delhi
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Saiju S.
- • T. B. Ragesh
Counsels for Respondents
- • S. Krishnamoorthy, SC, CGC
Case Synopsis & Summary
These writ petitions challenge the UGC notification that introduced a total/aggregate minimum qualifying marks for the National Eligibility Test (NET) after the June 2012 examination had commenced. Petitioners, five female candidates, contend they had already met the minimum marks under the original notification for each paper, but the UGC, just days before result declaration, altered the norms and added an aggregate criterion, disadvantaging those not informed of the new scheme. The petitions relied on a series of precedents holding that rules of selection cannot be changed after the process has begun. A prior Single Judge decision in W.P.(C) No. 22187/2012 and connected cases had declared such mid-course changes not sustainable and directed issuance of NET certificates to qualified candidates. The court considered the law declared by the Apex Court in K. Manjusree and by Kerala High Court Full Bench in Cyril Johnson and Division Bench in Jayachandran, all supporting that selection rules cannot be altered during the process. The UGC’s reliance on Civil Appeal Nos. 4959 and 4962 of 2011 regarding viva voce norms was distinguished as distinguishable since those norms were embedded in rules but not in the advertisement. Ultimately the court held that petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the declaratory judgment, declaring them NET-cleared and directing issuance of certificates within a month, while cautioning that a future writ appeal could extend the law to all similarly situated.
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
- Law declared by the Apex Court is binding on the State and its instrumentality
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the UGC cannot modify the minimum qualifying criteria mid‑course. They had already crossed the minima per the notification and the subsequent addition of an aggregate minimum was not in the original notification or the advertisement for NET June 2012. This mid‑stream change deprived them of eligibility for Lectureship and thus violates established rules against changing selection parameters after process initiation. They seek a declaration that they have cleared NET and request issuance of NET certificates within a month, as per the earlier judgment in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that adjustments to norms may be justifiable in light of evolving criteria and administrative convenience, and that the writ petition cannot automatically bind the UGC to new norms without considering broader implications. They contend the writ petitions need to be assessed against the context of the UGC’s notification and the statutory framework, and fear hardship if the declaratory relief is broad. They also emphasize the potential effect of a writ appeal on the uniform application of the declaration.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another | [(2008) 3 SCC 512] | Positive | Used to support that selection rules cannot be changed after commencement of the process of selection. |
| Dr. Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others | [2009 (4) KHC 404 (FB)] | Positive | Full Bench cited in support of the principle against mid-process changes. |
| Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala | [2010 (4) KLT 49] | Positive | Division Bench cited to reinforce non‑change of rules mid‑process. |
| Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others | (1997(2) SCC 1) | Positive | Declaratory judgments bind all similarly situated persons. |
| Civil Appeal Nos. 4959 and 4962 of 2011 | — | Distinguished | Apex Court decision on viva voce norms not applicable here as not within the same context. |
| W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 & connected cases | — | Positive | Judgment declaring that mid-course changes cannot be sustained and applicable to similarly situated petitioners. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Gayathri V.M. and others 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**
**THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013/13TH POUSHA 1934**
**WP(C).No. 312 of 2013 (L) -------------------------**
## **PETITIONERS :**
**-------------**
**1. GAYATHRI.V.M., D/O.MOHANDAS.V.G., AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'VALIAPARAMBIL HOUSE' LOKAMALESWRAM, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 664**
**2. HASEENA O M., D/O.MAJEED O.K, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'OLAVAKKODE HOUSE', MATHILAKAM P.O., KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 685**
**3. ASHA PADIYATH P.H., D/O.HASBULLA, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'PADIYATH HOSUE', AZHICODE JETTY P.O., AZHICODE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 666**
**4. SUHAIMA P., D/O.HUSSAIN P., AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'PULIYAMPATTA HOUSE', P.A. M .VAIDYASALA, NADUVATTOM P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 308**
**5. SOUMYA K.K., D/O.KRISHNA.K.K., AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'KARIYAZHUTH HOUSE', KOOLIMUTTAM P.O., KOOLIMUTTAM, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 691**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJU S. SRI.T.B.RAGESH**
- **RESPONDENTS : --------------**
**1.UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 006**
**2.NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING BUREAU, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 006**
**BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, CGC**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-01-2013 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.316 OF 2013 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **RKM**
**WP(C).No. 312 of 2013 (L) -------------------------**
**APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :**
|**EXT.P1:-**|**THE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION CONTAINING**|
|---|---|
||**THE SCHEME OF THE NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST (NET)FOR JUNE**|
||**2012, ISSUED BY THE UGC**|
|**EXT.P2:-**|**THE COPIES OF ADMISSION CARDS PERTAINING TO THE NATIONAL**|
||**ELIGIBILITY TEST (NET)JUNE 2012, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS**|
||**BY THE UGC**|
|**EXT.P3:-**|**THE COPY OF THE UGC'S WEBSITE NOTIFICATION CONCERNING THE**|
||**REVISED NORM REGARDING HIGHER AGGREGATE SCORE, INTRODUCED IN**|
||**SEPTEMBER 2012**|
|**EXT.P4 :-**|**COPIES OF THE PETITIONERS'STATEMENT OF MARKS FOR THE**|
||**NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST HELD IN JUNE 2012.**|
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL**
**TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE**
## **RKM**
## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 312, 316, 317, 322, 323, 324, 338, 339 and 340 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3[rd] 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
_W.P.(C) No. 312 of 2013 and connected cases._
: 2 :
made with regard to the minimum qualifying marks and mode of reckoning the same; introducing the '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
_W.P.(C) No. 312 of 2013 and connected cases._
: 3 :
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.
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
_W.P.(C) No. 312 of 2013 and connected cases._
: 4 :
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 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
_W.P.(C) No. 312 of 2013 and connected cases._
: 5 :
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 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
_W.P.(C) No. 312 of 2013 and connected cases._
**==> picture [30 x 10] intentionally omitted <==**
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 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.
_W.P.(C) No. 312 of 2013 and connected cases._
**==> picture [30 x 10] intentionally omitted <==**
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.
sd/-
## **P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)**
kmd