High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-03-18Writ petition allowed; benefit of the declarato...

Sofia B. Nair v. University Grants Commission and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 7534 of 2013 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-03-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; the petitioner is declared to have cleared the NET. The court directs the concerned respondents to issue NET certificates to Sofia B. Nair within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, subject to any defects noted by the respondents. The decision is presented as declaratory, extending to all similarly situated candidates, and the judgment notes the possibility of the UGC challenging the decree via a writ appeal; if the appeal succeeds, the declaratory relief would apply prospectively to others.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; benefit of the declaratory judgment extended to the petitioner, recognizing that she has cleared the NET; certificate issuance ordered within one month; the position remains subject to possible appeal by the UGC and potential application of the law to similarly situated individuals.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SOFIA B. NAIR

Respondents

THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi
THE CO-ORDINATOR, 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
NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TESTING (NET) BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI - 110 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Santharam P
• Smt. Rekha Aravind

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Krishnamoorthy, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This case concerns a mid-course alteration of the eligibility norms for the National Eligibility Test (NET) for appointment as a Lecturer. Sofia B. Nair participated in the NET scheduled for 24.06.2012 and contends that the UGC modified the qualifying criteria days before results, introducing a total/aggregate minimum in addition to per-paper minima. This change, not disclosed in the notification, allegedly disadvantaged PETITIONERS who had already met the separate per-paper thresholds. The matter references a prior common order in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases, where the court held category-wise qualifying criteria to be unsustainable and directed issuance of certificates to those who cleared the separate minima. The Petitioner seeks identical relief, arguing that the decision is declaratory and binds all similarly situated applicants, regardless of party status. The court surveys precedents from the Supreme Court and Kerala courts, including K. Manjusree, Cyril Johnson, and Jayachandran, and distinguishes the Apex Court’s Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011 on viva voce criteria as not applicable here. The judgment ultimately treats the prior declaratory order as applicable to the petitioner and directs issuance of NET certificates within a month, while noting UGC’s right to challenge by writ appeal.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rules of selection cannot be changed after commencement of the selection process.
Declaratory judgments bind all similarly situated persons.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others (1997) 2 SCC 1 (declaratory relief applies to all similarly situated)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the UGC altered the minimum qualifying criteria for NET at the eleventh hour, introducing a total/aggregate minimum alongside per-paper minima, just days before the result. This mid-course change was not disclosed and would penalize those who had cleared per-paper thresholds. Relying on the principle that selection rules cannot be changed once the process commences and on the declaratory judgment in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases, the petitioner seeks relief equivalent to those petitioners: being treated as having cleared the NET and receiving certificates within one month. The petitioner argues the relief should extend to all similarly situated candidates and notes the respondents may challenge through a writ appeal. The reliance on precedents underscores that the legal framework remains settled in favor of stability of selection norms and nonretroactive changes.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the UGC acted to preserve fairness and the integrity of the selection process. They argue the changes were necessary and not retroactive in effect, with viva voce and other evolving norms reflected in post-advertisement development, citing the Supreme Court’s Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011 as distinguishable. They highlight hardship in extending relief to all petitioners and the potential for a flood of similar requests; pending writ appeals may ultimately govern the outcome. They request dismissal or limited relief, emphasizing that the law declared should apply prospectively if the appeals succeed, and that maintaining the original process preserves consistency and credibility.”},

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 rules of selection cannot be changed after commencement of the process.
Dr. Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others	2009 (4) KHC 404 (FB)	Positive	Cited as binding Full Bench authority supporting petitioners’ position.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	2010 (4) KLT 49	Positive	Division Bench decision cited in support of non-change of selection rules mid-process.
Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	CA Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	Distinguished	Apex Court judgment on viva voce not applicable here due to differences with the advertisement.
Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others	[(1997) 2 SCC 1]	Positive	Affirmed that declaratory judgments bind 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 Sofia B. Nair 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** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/27TH PHALGUNA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 7534 of 2013 (N)** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **SOFIA B. NAIR, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. DR. HARI B. NAIR, SREE BHAVAN, T.C 21/0316, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHARAM.P SMT.REKHA ARAVIND** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REEPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI - 110 001.** ## **2. THE CO-ORDINATOR,** - **UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NATIONAL ELIGIBIITY TEST FOR JUNIOR FELLOWSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP JUNE 2012, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI - 110 001.** **3. NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TESTING (NET) BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI - 110 001.** **R1 TO R3 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY,SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **WP(C).No. 7534 of 2013 (N)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTIFICATION PUBILSHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DOWNLOADED FROM ITS WEBSITE.** **EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE CATEGORY WISE QUALIFYING CRITREION FOR LECTURESHIP ELIGIBILITY NOTIFIED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPIES OF THE MARK LIST ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: N I L** **-----------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 7534 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 18[th] day of March, 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 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. 7534 of 2013_ : 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 _W.P.(C) No. 7534 of 2013_ : 3 : 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 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 _W.P.(C) No. 7534 of 2013_ : 4 : 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 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 _W.P.(C) No. 7534 of 2013_ : 5 : 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 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 _W.P.(C) No. 7534 of 2013_ : 6 : declaratory judgment, this Court does not find any reason to take a different course. 8. In the above circumstances, the 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 her 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 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 Appeal. _W.P.(C) No. 7534 of 2013_ : 7 : 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 is 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