High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-01Writ petitions allowed; declaratory relief exte...

Rajitha M. et al. v. University Grants Commission and Others (W.P.(C). Nos. 25, 40, 52, 55, 85 & 86 of 2013)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 25 of 2013 (C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-01-01
Court Decision / Holding: All these writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners who had obtained the separate minimum marks prescribed in the notification 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 a copy of this judgment, subject to curing any defects pointed out by the respondents. The court also observed that, if the UGC’s writ appeal is allowed, the declaratory law will apply to all petitioners on identical footing. The bench emphasizes that the declaratory judgment should extend to similarly situated individuals beyond the named parties.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; declaratory relief extended; NET certificates to be issued within one month; possibility of appeal acknowledged.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajitha M., Sunitha Kumari N., Sreejith G., Abey Kuria-kose, Sarath O.K.

Respondents

The University Grants Commission represented by its 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

• K. Nandakumar (Adv.)

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Krishnamoorthi, CGC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The judgment addresses whether the University Grants Commission (UGC) could alter the qualifying norms for the National Eligibility Test (NET) after the examination process had begun. The petitioners—five candidates who contend they had already crossed the separate minimum marks for Papers I, II and III as notified—claim that introducing a total aggregate minimum and a different mode of reckoning, a few days before results, disadvantaged them. The court recounts a prior decision in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 holding that the UGC’s method of prescribing category-wise criteria for lectureship was not sustainable, and that those who met the earlier minimums should be certified. In this proceeding, the court treats that declaratory judgment as applicable to all similarly situated petitioners. Relying on precedents such as K. Manjusree, Cyril Johnson, and Jayachandran, the court emphasizes that selection rules cannot be altered after the process has begun. It distinguishes a recent Apex Court decision on viva voce qualifying marks as not controlling where the facts differed (advertisement did not reflect viva voce criteria). Ultimately, the court grants relief to the petitioners, directing the UGC to issue NET certificates within one month, while noting the possibility of a writ appeal."

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way during the process of selection.
Declaratory judgments, when rendered, apply to all similarly situated persons ( Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar ).
Selection rules cannot be altered after commencement of the process of selection.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the UGC modified the minimum qualifying criteria just before the declaration of results, after the notification had set separate minimum marks for Papers I–III. They contended that this mid-course change violated settled rules and the earlier declaratory judgment in W.P.(C)22187/2012, and sought extension of that relief to all similarly situated candidates, with certificates issued if they had already met the notified minimums.

Contentions of Respondents

The UGC submitted that changes were necessary to refine eligibility norms and that granting blanket relief would create hardship and undermine administrative processes. It was argued that the appeal against the earlier judgment is being pursued and interim orders in related cases indicated a contested outcome.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another	2008 (3) SCC 512	Positive	Cited as authority supporting that selection rules cannot be altered after the process has begun, aligning with the petitioners’ argument.
Dr. Cyril Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others	2009 (4) KHC 404 (FB)	Positive	Cited from the Full Bench decision supporting stable, non-changing criteria during ongoing selection processes.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	2010 (4) KLT 49	Positive	Division Bench precedent reinforcing that changes to selection rules post-initiation are not permissible.
Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	(Apex Court)	Distinguished	Not applicable here as the advertisement did not stipulate viva voce criteria; the factual basis differed.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others	1997 (2) SCC 1	Positive	Declaratory judgments can apply to all similarly situated persons, supporting the court’s broad relief.

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 Rajitha M. et al. v. University Grants Commission and Others (W.P.(C). Nos. 25, 40, 52, 55, 85 & 86 of 2013) 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. 25 of 2013 (C) ------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **1. RAJITHA M. AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. LATE MR.CHAYICHAN, MANNARTHODI HOUSE, PADINHATTUMMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 506.** **2. SUNITHA KUMARI N., D/O. N.NARAYANAN, CHENATH HOUSE, MURIPARAMBU, KORATTY POST, CHALAKUDY,KERALA-680 308.** **3. SREEJITH G., S/O. G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, GOVINDAMANDIRAM, VAZHOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM-686 504.** **4. ABEY KURIAKOSE, S/O. KURIAKOSE, MARUKUMMOOTTIL, PERUMPANACHY P.O., CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM.** **5. SARATH O.K., S/O. RAMAN, OTHAYOTH KOVILAKAM HOUSE, BALUSSERY P.O.,BALUSSERY (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 612.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.NANDAKUMAR** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** **1. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **WP(C).No. 25 of 2013 (C)** ## **2. THE COORDINATOR** - **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 01-01-2013 ALONG WITH W.P.C 40/2013 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LSN** ## **WP(C).No. 25 of 2013 ©** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** - **P1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE.** - **P2 : COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTIFICATION.** - **P3 : COPY OF THE CHANGED CRITERIA PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE ON 19.9.2012.** - **P4 : COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE REGISTER NUMBER OF THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS AND THE SUBJECT OF THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** **LSN** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C). Nos. 25, 40, 52, 55, 85 & 86 of 2013 ---------------------------------------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 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 qualifying marks and mode of reckoning the same; W.P.C. Nos.25 & Connected cases/2013 -2- 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 similar benefit, as given by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. W.P.C. Nos.25 & Connected cases/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** (2008 (3) SCC 512),the Full Bench of this Court in **Dr.Cyril Johnson** W.P.C. Nos.25 & Connected cases/2013 -4- **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. 7. As mentioned hereinbefore, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is rather declaratory in nature. It has been ## W.P.C. Nos.25 & Connected cases/2013 -5- 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. 9. Considering the fact that petitioners are being given the benefit of the above declaratory judgment, it is also W.P.C. Nos.25 & Connected cases/2013 -6- 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** kp.