High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-31Writ petitions allowed; declared NET-cleared fo...

Sajitha P. Soman v. University Grants Commission and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 2917 of 2013 (l)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-01-31
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed; petitioners entitled to the benefit of the declaratory judgment from W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 & connected cases. Petitioners who had the separate minimum marks for Papers I, II and III are declared NET-cleared, and certificates must be issued within one month, subject to any defects pointed out by respondents. The court also notes that if the UGC’s writ appeal succeeds, the law declared will apply to all petitioners.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; declared NET-cleared for those who met the separate minimum marks; certificates to be issued within one month; potential effect of any appeal noted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajitha P. Soman

Respondents

University Grants Commission (UGC) represented by its Secretary, Office of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi
The Coordinator, University Grants Commission, 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, Office of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Lindons C. Davis, Adv.

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel (for UGC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions challenge the UGC’s decision to alter the National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification norms mid-process for the June 2012 NET exam. The petitioner, Sajitha P. Soman, contends that the UGC notified an exam with specific norms for each paper and for an aggregate score, and that a few days before results were due the UGC introduced a new criterion requiring a combined aggregate cut-off in addition to per-paper minimums. This sudden shift, not disclosed to candidates, allegedly violated the notification and the established method of evaluation, prejudicing those who had already met the original per-paper criteria. Similar petitions were heard together, and a common judgment by a learned Single Judge (W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases) held that the UGC’s category-wise qualifying criteria were not sustainable. The court here notes that declaratory relief, where granted, applies to all similarly situated persons, irrespective of party status, citing Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others. After considering rival arguments and binding precedents (K. Manjusree; Dr. Cyril Johnson; Jayachandran) that selection rules cannot be changed after the process begins, the court allows relief to petitioners who had separate minimum marks for Papers I–III, declaring them NET-cleared and directing issuance of certificates within one month. The judgment also cautions that if the UGC appeals, the declaratory law would apply to all affected petitioners.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rules of the game cannot be changed after commencement of the process.
A declaratory judgment binds all similarly situated persons, irrespective of party status.
Binding effect of judicial precedents on lower courts.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argue that the UGC cannot alter required qualifying norms at the last moment or after the process of selection has started; the earlier notification fixed per-paper minimums and overall aggregation norms, and changes amount to arbitrariness and denial of legitimate expectations. They rely on preceding Kerala and Supreme Court decisions to show that selection rules cannot be changed mid-process and seek declaration that those who satisfied the original criteria must be NET-cleared, with certificates issued promptly.

Contentions of Respondents

The UGC contends that policy updates and clarifications may be necessary and justified where overall eligibility and evaluation norms evolve; the absence of express advertisement of the later aggregate criterion should not automatically invalidate policy changes if supported by rules. The respondents urge that hardship to the UGC be considered and that the decision may be subject to appeal; they reference the Apex Court’s viva voce judgment and argue distinctions apply.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another	[(2008) 3 SCC 512]	Positive	Supports the principle that rules of selection cannot be changed after commencement of the process of selection.
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 selection rules.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	(2010 (4) KLT 49)	Positive	Division Bench precedent aligning with non-change of selection norms mid-process.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others	[(1997) 2 SCC 1]	Positive	Declaratory judgments bind all similarly situated persons, even beyond parties to the case.
Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	(Apex Court Civil Appeals Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011)	Distinguished	Apex Court viva voce-related ruling distinguished as it relied on specific rules not present in the advertisement.

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 Sajitha P. Soman 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** ## **THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/11TH MAGHA 1934** **WP(C).No. 2917 of 2013 (l) -------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **------------------** **SAJITHA P.SOMAN, D/O.K.SOMAN, PUTHENVILA HOUSE, EDAYAM P.O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS.** **RESPONDENTS:** ## **-----------------------** **1. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI - 110 001.** ## **2. THE COORDINATOR,** - **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 EDUCATIONAL TESTING (NET) BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI - 110 001.** ## **BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S.C.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.2972/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **W.P.(C). NO.2917/2013-L:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION FOR NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST EXAMINATION.** **EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF CHANGED CRITERIA PUBLISHED BY THE UGC FOR QUALIFYING LECTURESHIP IN UGC-NET.** **EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE NET MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Prv.** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 2917, 2972, 2981 and 2987 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 31[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 _W.P.(C) No. 2917 of 2013 and connected cases._ : 2 : made with regard to the minimum 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 _W.P.(C) No. 2917 of 2013 and connected cases._ : 3 : 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 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 _W.P.(C) No. 2917 of 2013 and connected cases._ : 4 : 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 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 _W.P.(C) No. 2917 of 2013 and connected cases._ : 5 : 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 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 _W.P.(C) No. 2917 of 2013 and connected cases._ : 6 : 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 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 _W.P.(C) No. 2917 of 2013 and connected cases._ : 7 : 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. Sd/- **P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)** kmd