High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-02-28Writ petitions allowed; NET declarations for pe...

SREEKUTTY I.P. and others v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 5702 of 2013 (K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed. Petitioners who had separately minimum marks for Papers I-III and thus satisfied the NET were declared to have cleared the NET. The respondents were directed to issue NET certificates to these petitioners at the earliest, within one month, subject to any defects pointed out. The court also noted that if the UGC’s writ appeal succeeds, the declaratory relief would extend to all similarly situated; directions were issued to expedite procedural steps and furnish copies of the judgment to the Standing Counsel.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; NET declarations for petitioners; certificates to be issued within one month; potential applicability to others if UGC appeals succeed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SREEKUTTY I.P., D/O.PREMALAL, MELEDATH, KANDASSANKADAVU, THRISSUR-680 613
DHANYA. K., D/O.PRABHAKARAN. K, CHALIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMARAMPUTHUR. P.O., MANNARKKAD-678 583
ASHARAF. P., S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, THEKKIL HOUSE, MOOLAD. P.O., NADUVANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE-673 614
DEEPA. T., D/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, CHETTIPPADI, PARAPPANANGADI-676 319
JILNA. K.C., D/O.KUNHIKANARAN. K.T., KOYYODANKANDY HOUSE, KOOTHALI. P.O., PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE-673 525
SONITHA. K., D/O.M.V.SASEENDARN, KAIPPARATH VALAPPIL, MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR-670 662
SAYED MUHAMMED. P., S/O.SOOPPI MUSLIYAR. P, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, MONGAM. P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 642
MUSTHAFA. P.H., S/O.HAMSA. P.M, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALI. P.O., VARAVOOR, THRISSUR-680 585

Respondents

THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI.110 001
THE CO-ORDINATOR, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR JUNIOR RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP JUNE 2012, OFFICE OF THE UGC, NEW DELHI-110 001
NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE UGC, NEW DELHI-110 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.E.C.BINEESH
• SMT.M.B. SHYNI
• SMT.R.SANGHESWARY

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the University Grants Commission’s alteration of eligibility norms for appointment as lecturers via the National Eligibility Test (NET), to be conducted in June 2012. The petitioners contended that they had already met the per-paper minimum marks and that the UGC, shortly before announcing results, introduced an aggregate minimum and a new method of reckoning marks. They argued that changing rules mid-process is unfair and undermines the selection process. The matter relates to a line of petitions collectively challenging the UGC’s category-wise qualifying criteria. The court recalls a prior judgment in W.P.(C) No. 22187/2012 and connected cases, which held the UGC’s change in criteria as not sustainable and directed issuance of NET certificates to petitioners who satisfied the earlier minimums for Papers I-III. The judge canvasses precedents including K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Dr. Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala (FB), and Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala, to emphasize that rules of selection cannot be altered after the process begins. The court ultimately declares a declaratory relief, enabling petitioners who met the early minimums to be treated as NET-cleared and directs timely issuance of certificates, while noting possible appeals by the UGC.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the UGC’s modification of the NET qualifying criteria—introducing an aggregate minimum and a new mode of reckoning marks—occurred after the examination process had commenced and thus violated the principle that selection rules cannot be altered midstream. They relied on prior high court and Supreme Court precedents declaring that eligibility and qualification norms in force at the time of notification and during the selection process must be respected, and that declaratory judgments seeking consistency should apply to all similarly situated individuals. They urged issuance of NET certificates based on the originally notified criteria (Papers I-III minimums) and sought a direction for formal certification within a short timeframe.

Contentions of Respondents

The UGC argued hardship and the necessity to adopt a fairer, current framework, suggesting that the select list could not be finalized under old norms. They pointed to the possibility of a writ appeal and argued that the 2011 apex court judgment on viva voce minimums was not directly applicable since it involved advertisement-based omissions, unlike the current notification. They also emphasized the need to align with evolving standards and avoid prejudicing future applicants. The court’s prior declaratory approach—viewed as binding on similarly situated petitioners—was discussed, while noting the risk of broad application via appellate reversal.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another	[(2008) 3 SCC 512]	Positive	Used as a binding precedent to emphasize 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	Cited as part of the Full Bench authority supporting stability of selection norms.
Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala	[2010 (4) KLT 49]	Positive	Referenced to reinforce the principle that rules of selection cannot be altered mid-process.
Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar and others	[(1997) 2 SCC 1]	Positive	Cited for the declaratory effect—declaratory judgments apply to all similarly situated persons.
Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011	Distinguished	Distinguished on the basis that those cases involved viva voce visibility not contemplated in the advertisement, hence not applicable here.

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 SREEKUTTY I.P. and others v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION 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 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/9TH PHALGUNA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 5702 of 2013 (K)** ## **---------------------------** - **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** **1. SREEKUTTY I.P., D/O.PREMALAL, MELEDATH, KANDASSANKADAVU, THRISSUR-680 613.** **2. DHANYA. K., D/O.PRABHAKARAN. K, CHALIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMARAMPUTHUR. P.O., MANNARKKAD-678 583.** **3. ASHARAF. P., S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, THEKKIL HOUSE, MOOLAD. P.O., NADUVANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE-673 614.** **4. DEEPA. T., D/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, CHETTIPPADI, PARAPPANANGADI-676 319.** **5. JILNA. K.C., D/O.KUNHIKANARAN. K.T., KOYYODANKANDY HOUSE, KOOTHALI. P.O., PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE-673 525.** **6. SONITHA. K., D/O.M.V.SASEENDARN, KAIPPARATH VALAPPIL, MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR-670 662.** **7. SAYED MUHAMMED. P., S/O.SOOPPI MUSLIYAR. P, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, MONGAM. P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 642.** **8. MUSTHAFA. P.H., S/O.HAMSA. P.M, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALI. P.O., VARAVOOR, THRISSUR-680 585.** - **BY ADVS.SRI.E.C.BINEESH, SMT.M.B. SHYNI,** - **SMT.R.SANGHESWARY.** ## **WP(C).No. 5702 of 2013 (K)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI.110 001.** ## **2. THE CO-ORDINATOR,** - **UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR JUNIOR RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP JUNE 2012, OFFICE OF THE UGC, NEW DELHI-110 001.** ## **3. NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING BUREAU,** - **OFFICE OF THE UGC, NEW DELHI-110 001.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **WP(C).No. 5702 of 2013 (K)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET DOWN LOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **P3(A)- THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET DOWN LOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **P3(B)- THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET DOWN LOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **P3(C)- THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET DOWN LOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.** - **P3(D)- THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET DOWN LOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BY THE 5TH PETITIONER.** - **P3(E)- THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET DOWN LOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BY THE 6TH PETITIONER.** - **P3(F)- THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET DOWN LOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BY THE 7TH PETITIONER.** - **P3(G)- THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET DOWN LOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BY THE 8TH PETITIONER.** - **P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE CATEGORY-WISE QUALIFYING CRITERIA FOR LECTURESHIP ELIGIBILITY NOTIFIED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 5702 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28[th] day of February, 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 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 _W.P.(C) No. 5702 of 2013_ : 2 : 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. 5702 of 2013_ : 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 _W.P.(C) No. 5702 of 2013_ : 4 : 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 minimum qualifying marks for 'viva voce', introduced just two _W.P.(C) No. 5702 of 2013_ : 5 : 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 declaratory judgment, this Court does not find any reason to _W.P.(C) No. 5702 of 2013_ : 6 : 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 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 _W.P.(C) No. 5702 of 2013_ : 7 : 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 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