High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-12-31Petitions Allowed; relief granted to petitioner...

Rajeev K Thunduvila Kizkathil, Sheejabeevi J.S., and Rajani N.S. v. University Grants Commission, National Educational Testing (NET) Bureau, Coordinator NET (June 2012) and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos. 31108 & 31406 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2012-12-31
Court Decision / Holding: W.P.(C) Nos. 31108 & 31406/2012 are allowed. The court holds that petitioners who met the separate minimums for Papers I, II and III are deemed to have cleared NET and directs the concerned respondent to issue certificates within one month, subject to defect rectifications. It confirms that the declaratory judgment applies to all similarly situated persons, and cautions that if the UGC succeeds in its writ appeal, the law declared would extend to all. The petitions are disposed of accordingly, with a note that the petitioners should file additional copies for expedited processing.
Final Disposition: Petitions Allowed; relief granted to petitioners; declaratory relief binding on similarly situated persons; directions to issue NET certificates within one month; potential applicability to others if UGC succeeds on appeal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajeev K Thunduvila Kizkathil
Sheejabeevi J.S.
Rajani N.S.

Respondents

University Grants Commission represented by its Secretary, New Delhi
Coordinator NET for 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

• Sri. Shaji Thomas
• Sri. N. Nagareesh
• Sri. Binu Paul
• Sri. T.V. Vinu

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, CGC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court judgment (W.P.(C) Nos. 31108 & 31406 of 2012) rendered by Justice P. R. Ramachandra Menon on 31 December 2012. The petitions challenge the University Grants Commission’s mid‑course revision of the qualifying criteria for the National Eligibility Test (NET) for lecturers. The UGC notified NET norms with separate minimum marks per paper, but, just days before results, introduced an aggregate minimum and altered the mode of reckoning marks. Petitioners assert they sat the exam under the advertised format and were not informed of later changes, so the modification prejudiced them and other similarly situated candidates. They rely on this Court’s earlier decision in W.P.(C) No. 22187/2012 and connected cases, which struck down category‑wise criteria and held that those who met the separate minimums for Papers I, II and III had effectively cleared NET. The respondents contend that the changes were necessary to standardize evaluation and that hardship to UGC is a valid consideration, and they threaten a writ appeal. The court analyzes precedents (K. Manjusree; Cyril Johnson; Jayachandran) and distinguishes a Supreme Court decision on viva voce criteria for lack of advertisement, ultimately declaring that the petitioners who satisfied the earlier criteria are entitled to relief. It directs issuing NET certificates within one month, subject to defects pointed out, and notes that if the appeal succeeds, the declaratory law should apply to all similarly situated individuals.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rules of the game could not be changed in the middle of the game.
Rules of selection could not be changed after commencement of the process of selection.
Declaratory judgments bind all who are similarly situated irrespective of party status (Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that changing the NET qualifying criteria after the examination has begun violates the advertised rules and fundamental fairness. They executed the test under notified norms (separate minimum marks per paper) and were not informed of mid-course modifications introducing an aggregate criterion. They rely on this Court’s prior W.P.(C) No. 22187/2012 and related cases establishing that selection rules cannot be altered mid-process. They argue the declaratory judgment framework should bind all similarly situated candidates. The petitioners request that the earlier criteria be applied to them and to others in similar situations, and that NET certificates be issued promptly, within a month of this judgment, with any defects cured.

Contentions of Respondents

The UGC submits that it has discretion to revise standards to maintain quality and consistency in evaluation, and that the changes were publicized and necessary to standardize outcomes. It contends the decision aligns with evolving evaluation norms and is not barred by the advertisement in every respect. It argues that the hardship to the agency is real and that the writ petitioners are not entitled to relief beyond the declaratory framework. It emphasizes the possibility of an appeal which, if successful, would apply the declaratory principles prospectively. It also distinguishes cases where viva voce criteria were challenged due to non-disclosure in advertisements and maintains that the current norms were appropriately incorporated in rules, if not the advertisement.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another	2008 (3) SCC 512	Positive	Cited in support of the proposition that selection rules 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 supporting the petitioners’ view that selection rules cannot be altered mid‑process.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	2010 (4) KLT 49	Positive	Division Bench decision aligning with the petitioners’ position on fixed rules at the start of selection.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others	1997(2) SCC 1	Positive	Principle that declaratory judgments apply to all similarly situated persons.
Civil Appeals Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	Civil Appeals Nos.4959-4962 of 2011	Distinguished	SC decision distinguished because viva voce criteria were not included in the advertisement; not applicable here.
W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases	W.P.(C) No.22187/2012	Positive	Previous judgment relied upon, forming the basis for declaratory relief in the present petitions.

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 Rajeev K Thunduvila Kizkathil, Sheejabeevi J.S., and Rajani N.S. v. University Grants Commission, National Educational Testing (NET) Bureau, Coordinator NET (June 2012) 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** **MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934** **WP(C).No. 31108 of 2012 (K) ---------------------------** - **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **1. RAJEEV.K THUNDUVILA KIZKATHIL, ATTUVASSERYMAVADY P.O. KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. SHEEJABEEVI J.S.** **BADARIYA MANZIL, CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. RAJANI N.S. D/O.N.A.SANKU, THAZHISSERRY HOUSE KANDANASSERRY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** **1. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **2. COORDINATOR** **UGC NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR JUNIOR FELLOWSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURERSHIP 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 ALONG WITH W.P.C.31406 OF 2012 ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 31108 of 2012 (K)** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY R1.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CHANGED CRITERIA PUBLISHED ON 19-9-2012 BY R1.** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF THE 1ST PETITIONER PUBLISHED BY R1.** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF THE 2ND PETITIONER PUBLISHED BY R1.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF THE 3RD PETITIONER PUBLISHED BY R1.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **KP** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** ------------------------------------- **W.P.(C) Nos.** 31108 & 31406 of 2012 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** Whether 'Rules of the game' could be changed during the middle of the game, is the issue involved both the 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 'total/ aggregate minimum' as well, apart from W.P.C. No.31108 & 31406/2012 -2- 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. 5. Sri.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for W.P.C. No.31108 & 31406/2012 -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 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 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 W.P.C. No.31108 & 31406/2012 -4- 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 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.31108 & 31406/2012 -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 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 benefit of the above declaratory judgment, it is also necessary to put the petitioners on alert, as to the steps stated W.P.C. No.31108 & 31406/2012 -6- 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** kp.