High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-08Writ petitions allowed

Hima Peethambaran v. University Grants Commission and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.24341 of 2012 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-01-08
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed; petitioners declared to have cleared NET by virtue of the earlier separate minimums for Papers I, II and III; appropriate follow-up action directed to issue NET certificates within one month from receipt of the judgment, subject to defects pointed out by respondents. The court noted that if the UGC succeeds on appeal, the declaratory rule would apply prospectively to all similarly situated individuals.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hima Peethambaran

Respondents

The University Grants Commission (UGC) represented by its Secretary, New Delhi
Coordinator, National Eligibility Test for Junior Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureship - June 2012, UGC, New Delhi
National Eligibility Test Bureau, UGC, New Delhi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Sethumadhavan
• Sri. Pushparajan Kodoth
• Sri. K. Jayesh Mohankumar
• Smt. Vandana Menon

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court writ petition concerns the validity of changing National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification norms by the University Grants Commission (UGC) after the examination process had commenced. The petitioners, including Hima Peethambaran, contended that the UGC notified the NET criteria for June 2012, but, just days before the result declaration, altered the standard—introducing an aggregate minimum and adjusting per-paper marks. Petitioners claimed they had met the earlier minimums for Papers I, II and III; the post hoc changes deprived them of NET clearance they believed they had earned and violated the principle that recruitment rules cannot be altered after the process has begun. A series of petitions, connected with W.P.(C) No. 22187/2012 and others, had earlier been considered by a Single Judge, who held that the new category-wise criteria were not correct or sustainable. The present court examined law and judicial precedents including K. Manjusree, the Cyril Johnson Full Bench, and Jayachandran, which held that selection rules could not be changed after initiation of the process. The court also noted the Apex Court’s decision on viva voce marks (Civil Appeals Nos.4959-4962 of 2011) as distinguishing because it related to an advertisement/rules mismatch. The court concluded that the declaratory judgment benefit should apply to all similarly situated, and allowed the petitions, directing that NET certificates be issued within one month, subject to defects pointed out by respondents, while warning that if the UGC’s appeal succeeds, the law declared would apply across the board.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the UGC’s mid-course alteration of the NET qualification norms—adding a total aggregate minimum and redefining per-paper minima—after the examination process had begun, undermined the reliance interests created by the original notification. They argue that the advertisement did not contemplate such post-notification changes and that those who had already met the earlier minima for Papers I, II and III should be deemed to have cleared NET, with certificates issued promptly. They rely on prior judgments declaring that rules governing selection cannot be altered midstream, and seek extension of the same declaratory relief to all similarly situated candidates.

Contentions of Respondents

The UGC argued that changes were needed to reflect evolving policy and ensure consistent standards; altering norms mid-process could be necessary to uphold overall quality. They submitted hardship to the respondent body and indicated steps to file a writ appeal. They emphasized that the declaratory relief should not be treated as binding beyond the petitioners and that continued monitoring is required, particularly given ongoing proceedings and potential challenges to the order.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another	2008(3) SCC 512	Positive	Cited as controlling authority that 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 cited in support of the non-temptation to alter selection norms mid-process.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	2010(4) KLT 49	Positive	Division Bench ruling cited in support of protection against post-initiation rule changes.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others	1997(2) SCC 1	Positive	Declaratory judgments apply to all similarly situated, not only to petitioners.
Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	Civil Appeal Nos.4959-4962 of 2011	Distinguished	Apex Court decision on viva voce minimums not applicable due to mismatch between advertisement and rules.

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 Hima Peethambaran v. University Grants Commission and others 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 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/18TH POUSHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 24341 of 2012 (P)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** **-------------------** **HIMA PEETHAMBARAN, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. PEETHAMBARAN.M.P.,MADAPPALLIL HOUSE, NADAKKAVU.P.O, UDAYAMPEROOR,COCHIN-682 307.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR, SMT.VANDANA MENON.** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,NEW DELHI-110 001.** **2. THE CO-ORDINATOR, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR JUNIOR FELLOWSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP- JUNE-2012, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **3. NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TESTING (NET) BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **R1 TO R3 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S.C.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO. 30752/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **W.P.(C). NO.24341/2012-P:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DOWNLADED FROM ITS WEBSITE. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER, DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CATEGORY WISE QUALIFYING CRITERIA FOR LECTURESHIP ELIGIBILITY NOTIFIED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Prv.** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(C)Nos.24341,25545,30751,30752,30759,30951,30960, 31153,31154,31155,31156,31157,31158,31351,31352, 31353,31354,31359,31384, 31392, 31393, 31394, 31395, 31396,31397,31398,31399 of 2012** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8[th] 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 W.P.(C)Nos.24341/2012 & connected cases 2 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 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 W.P.(C)Nos.24341/2012 & connected cases 3 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 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** 4 W.P.(C)Nos.24341/2012 & connected cases **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 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. W.P.(C)Nos.24341/2012 & connected cases 5 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 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.. W.P.(C)Nos.24341/2012 & connected cases 6 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. 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)Nos.24341/2012 & connected cases 7 W.P.(C)Nos.24341/2012 & connected cases 8