Judgment on SLP and Counter Opinion : Part First

If You Play Your Cards Right, . . . . .  

Dear Friends,

Needless to say, this is the crucial time for all the victims. We have received a huge and solid blow

by Supreme Court on Special Leave Petition. The verdict of Supreme Court has surprised and shocked all of us if we remember the arguments and pleading occurred in the court. Before some days, UGC was asked to put ego aside and the judges were not in the mood to listen the same tune of the lawyer of UGC, and see what we got at the end of the day.

There was a huge debate among petitioners on filing Review Petition. Some are of the firm opinion that the review petition should be filed and some are finding the

other ways.

If we analyze the verdict of Special Leave Petition, some points emerge that are needed to be debated and met.

Important Points derived from verdict:

Court’s View : 1] The power of the UGC to set the standard of qualifying criteria is not disputed but such criteria ought to have been notified and made known to the candidates before taking the examination on 24^th June, 2012.

Counter Opinion: Such criteria was not notified and made known to the candidates before taking the examination on 24^th June, 2012. The final criteria of aggregate and supplementary result came after the result and not before taking the examination. The final criteria was not notified as UGC notified for December 2012.

            Let’s see the difference between the two notification regarding final criteria: June 2012 and December 2012. I have pasted two notifications below:

June 2012: “However the final criteria for Junior Research Fellowship [JRF] and eligibility for Lectureship both and eligibility for lectureship only shall be decided UGC before the declaration of result.”

December 2012: “Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required marks in each Paper separately, as mentioned above, will be considered for final preparation of result. Further, it may be noted that mere obtaining of minimum marks in Paper-I, II & III as mentioned above, will not entitle any candidate to be declared qualified for Eligibility for Lectureship only OR Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship both. The aggregate percentage of Paper-I, II & III of all such candidates who obtain minimum required marks in each Paper separately, as mentioned above, will be taken into account while preparing the result. Based on the performance of all such candidates who obtain minimum required marks in each Paper separately, as mentioned above, and in all the three Papers taken together (i.e., aggregate percentage of Paper-I, II & III), UGC will determine cut-off points (separately for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship both OR for Eligibility for Lectureship only for each subject and category). Accordingly, UGC will prepare separately, two lists, i.e., a list of the candidates who will qualify for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship both, and the second list of the candidates who will be declared qualified for Eligibility for Lectureship only.”

            If we compare the two notifications, we will clearly understand that in second notification UGC has vividly notified and not in the first. UGC was compelled to do so because some candidates had knocked the door of Kerala High Court against the arbitrary move.

Court’s View : 2] UGC has been entrusted by UGC Act to take such steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities.

Counter Opinion: We also anticipate the same from UGC but while determining and maintaining it, UGC should do it fairly, transparently, and democratically.

Court’s View : 3] UGC has enacted under the provisions of Entry 66 to carry out the objective thereof. This has very wide-ranging powers. This includes the power to hold such a test to abolish disparities in the standards of education in the country. For example, the holder of a post graduate degree from one university is not necessarily of the same standard as the holder of the same post graduate of another university. Within the scope of Entry 66, UGC is armed with the power to take all such steps as it may think fit in this behalf.

Counter Opinion: UGC should go with what it has. We would like to support them. We too feel that there should not be disparities in the standards of education. So, what we would like to advise Government and UGC that only NET exam should be organized at post graduation level as we have Board exam for 10^th and 12 th standard.

Court’s View : 4] Clause 3.3.1 of the Regulation specifically states the NET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition. So, the power of the UGC to prescribe, as it thinks fit, the qualifying criteria can not be disputed.

Counter Opinion: Yes, we agree with the clause that NET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition. But it means that even though a student holds a NET certificate, he or she will not be selected to the post of Assistant Professor directly without any interview or screening test. He has to apply for the vacant seat. He has to face Interview Board or another recruitment exam and if the recruitment board thinks and feels that a particular candidate with NET certificate fits for the post, he will be appointed.

            Here, UGC has misled the court by elaborating that the clause 3.3.1 means UGC can revise the qualifying criteria without notification or after the result as it has done in case of NET June 2012.
P.S. : Feel free to write me about suggestions, queries on examinations, jobs, vacancies and recruitment at askyuvi2012@gmail.com.
Regards,
Yuvi
askyuvi2012@gmail.com

Click on the link below to read the second part.

Judgment on SLP and Counter Opinion : Part Second

The Joker In ThePack