High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-01Writ petition allowed; relief granted to petiti...

Lekhshmi Vijakumar v. University Grants Commission and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 25448 of 2012 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-01-01
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is declared to have cleared the NET since she satisfied the separate minima for Papers I–III, and the UGC is directed to issue NET certificates to the petitioner within one month, subject to any defects pointed out by the respondents. The court also notes that if the UGC files a writ appeal and succeeds, the declaratory judgment in the Division Bench decision will be applicable to the petitioner as well as others similarly situated. The petitioner’s counsel is asked to furnish an additional set of papers to the Standing Counsel for expeditious processing.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; relief granted to petitioner; potential for appeal noted; declaratory relief considerations discussed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lekhshmi Vijakumar

Respondents

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

• Adv. Smt. P.K. Radhika

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, CGC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court writ petition challenges the UGC’s mid-course modification of NET eligibility norms just days before the examination results for June 2012. The petitioner, Lekshmi Vijakumar, contends that the UGC introduced a total/aggregate qualifying criterion and a revised mode of reckoning, after norms had been fixed and participants had already prepared under the original notification. The case situates with a cluster of petitions whose common thread is that changes after process initiation undermine fairness and breach the terms of the notification. The Court recalls a prior declaratory judgment in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases, holding the UGC’s course as not correct and directing that petitioners who had met the separate minima for Papers I–III be treated as NET-cleared, with certificates issued within a month. The JUDGMENT examines law from KManjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Dr. Cyril Johnson, and Jayachandran, all supporting the proposition that selection rules cannot be altered after a process has begun. It also considers (and distinguishes) the Apex Court’s viva voce decision in Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011 when not aligned with the advertisement. Ultimately, the Court allows the petition, declaring the petitioner NET-cleared and directing issuance of certificates within one month, while noting the possibility of a writ appeal and the prospective application of the declaratory law to similarly situated persons.

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
Judicial precedents bind the decision-making and guide declaratory relief when applicable to others in similar circumstances
Where a decision is declaratory, its benefits extend beyond the parties to the immediate case to all similarly situated individuals

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the UGC fixed exam norms and per-paper minimum marks but, days before results, altered criteria to include aggregate minimums. Such mid-course changes were not communicated beforehand and undermine the integrity of the process. Since the petitioner cleared the separate minima for Papers I–III, she should be deemed NET-cleared; the declaratory relief granted in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases should extend to her, with certificates issued within one month. The petitioner also urges that the change was not reflected in the advertisement, and that non-parties benefiting from the declaratory judgment should be protected by universal applicability of the court’s reasoning.

Contentions of Respondents

The UGC contends the changes were policy-driven adjustments and not arbitrary; they plan to file a writ appeal, arguing that the relief sought would create hardship and undermine institutional guidelines. The respondents emphasize that the declaratory judgment is binding only on the petitioners before the earlier case and may not automatically extend to all similarly situated persons unless affirmed on appeal. They caution that granting blanket relief could affect the validity of ongoing and future NET processes and seek care in applying such declarations to non-parties.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another	2008(3) SCC 512	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that changes to selection rules after the process has begun are impermissible.
Dr. Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others	2009(4) KHC 404(FB)	Positive	Full Bench decision cited in support of consistent application of core selection principles.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	2010(4) KLT 49	Positive	Division Bench decision relied upon to bolster the stance that rules of selection cannot be altered mid-process.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others	1997(2) SCC 1	Positive	Declaratory nature of judgement extends to all similarly situated persons; basis for applying relief beyond immediate parties.
Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	Civil Appeal Nos.4959-4962 of 2011	Distinguished	Apex Court viva voce minimums decision distinguished as it was not anchored in the advertisement, hence not controlling in this case.

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 Lekhshmi Vijakumar 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 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/11TH POUSHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 25448 of 2012 (E)** ## **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **LEKSHMI VIJAKUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS D/O.D VIJAYAKUMAR RESIDING AT KULANGARETHU LEKSHMI BHAVAN PULIYOOR P.O CHENGANNUR 689510, ALAPPUZHA** **BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION NEW DELHI 110001** **2. THE COORDINATOR** **UGC NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR JUNIOR FELLOWSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP JUNE 2012, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI 110001** **3. NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING(NET) BUREAU UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI 110001** **R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 25448 of 2012 (E)** ## **APPENDIX:** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE UGC NOTIFICATION. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CHANGED CRITERIA PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE O N 19.9.2012. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **KP** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** ------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.** 25448 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1[st] day of January, 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. 25448 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. 25448 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 Andra 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. 25448 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. 25448 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. 25448 of 2013 -6Appeal. 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 all 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.