High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-30Allowed

Michelle Barboza v. University Grants Commission & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 2766 of 2013 (C) and WP(C).No. 2871 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-01-30
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed. Petitioners who had separate minimum marks for Papers I, II, and III are declared to have cleared the NET; appropriate follow‑up action shall be taken to issue certificates within one month of receipt of this judgment, subject to curing any defects pointed out by the respondents. If the writ appeal filed by the UGC is allowed, the declaratory law will apply to both sides.
Final Disposition: Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Michelle Barboza

Respondents

University Grants Commission (UGC)
Coordinator, UGC National Eligibility Test for Junior Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureship, June 2012, Office of the UGC, New Delhi
National Educational Testing (NET) Bureau, University Grants Commission, New Delhi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Krishnamoorthy, CGC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petitions challenge the University Grants Commission’s mid‑course alteration of the National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification norms for appointment as college lecturers. The core issue is whether the UGC could change the qualifying criteria after the examination had begun. The NET was notified with minimum marks for each paper; a few days before results, the UGC introduced an aggregate minimum in addition to per‑paper minima, disadvantaging petitioners who had already met the per‑paper thresholds. The petitioners argued that such changes were not disclosed in the advertisement or notification and thus violated fair procedure, rendering the process flawed. A nearby set of petitions (W.P. No. 22187/2012 and connected cases) had already held the UGC’s approach unsustainable and directed certificates for those who had met the separate per‑paper minima. The respondents contend that adjusting norms mid‑process is necessary to ensure fairness and standardization, and they indicated an intent to file a writ appeal. The judge relies on established precedents—K. Manjusree, Cyril Johnson (FB), and Jayachandran—to hold that selection rules cannot be altered after initiation, and that declaratory judgments extend to all similarly situated persons (Ashwani Kumar). Ultimately, the petitions are allowed; petitioners who had separate minimum marks are deemed NET‑qualified, with certificates to be issued within a month, subject to any defects and potential outcomes of a pending appeal.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the UGC unilaterally changed the qualifying norms for NET in the interval between the examination and the declaration of results by introducing an aggregate minimum in addition to per‑paper minimum marks, despite prior notification. They assert that such a change was neither disclosed in the advertisement nor notified beforehand, rendering the process unfair and unlawful. They rely on earlier judgments (including W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases) that held the mid‑course course of action unsustainable, seeking relief that petitioners who met the separate per‑paper minima be treated as NET‑qualified with certificates issued promptly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that altering norms mid‑process is necessary for fairness and standardization, and they note the UGC’s intention to file a writ appeal. They point to interim orders already in place and caution about the hardship to the agency if relief is granted. They reference the Apex Court judgment in Civil Appeals Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011 to argue that viva voce minima were not uniformly applicable or properly advertised, urging caution in broad relief and emphasizing procedural propriety.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another	2008(3) SCC 512	Positive	Court relied on the proposition that rules of selection cannot be changed after commencement of the process; supports petitioners' position.
Dr. Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others	2009(4) KHC 404 (FB)	Positive	Full Bench decision cited in support of non‑changing rules mid‑process.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	2010 (4) KLT 49	Positive	Division Bench decision supporting immunity of process from mid‑course rule changes.
Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	Nos. 4959/2011 & 4962/2011	Distinguished	Apex Court decision on viva voce minimums where the stipulation was in rules but not in advertisements; distinguished because not applicable in the present context.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others	1997(2) SCC 1	Positive	Declaratory judgments apply to all similarly situated persons.

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 Michelle Barboza v. University Grants Commission & 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** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/10TH MAGHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 2766 of 2013 (C)** **------------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -----------------------** **MICHELLE BARBOZA, AGED 22 YEARS D/O.ROYSTON BARBOZA, SHADY NOOK, 43/3483, RED CROSS ROAD, CALICUT, KERALA-673 032.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** **1. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **2. THE CO-ORDINATOR, UGC NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR JUNIOR FELLOWSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP JUNE 2012, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **3. NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING (NET) BUREAU, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI-110 001.** ## **BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2013, ALONG WITH WPC 2871/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DG** ## **WP(C).No. 2766 of 2013 (C)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CHANGED CRITERIA PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE ON 19.09.2012. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF THE PETITIONER OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **DG** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** .............................................................................. **W.P. © No. 2766 & 2871 OF 2013** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 30[th] January, 2013** ## **J U D G M E N T** Whether the '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 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 the 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 ## **W.P. © No. 2766 & 2871 OF 2013** ## **2** quite to the disadvantage of the 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. © No. 2766 & 2871 OF 2013** ## **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** ## **W.P. © No. 2766 & 2871 OF 2013 4** ( 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. © No. 2766 & 2871 OF 2013 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, 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 ## **W.P. © No. 2766 & 2871 OF 2013 6** respondents.. 9. Considering the fact that the 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 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 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 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.** ## **W.P. © No. 2766 & 2871 OF 2013** **7** lk