Judgment on SLP and Counter Opinion : Part Second : The Joker In The Pack

Dear Friends,

            This is the second part of the important article. Please read the previous or first article so that you can get idea. To read the first article, click on the following link: 
Judgment on SLP and Counter Opinion : Part First

Part Second : The Joker In The Pack

Court’s View : 5] Para 7 of the notification clearly indicates that only such candidates who obtain minimum required marks in each paper will be considered for final preparation of results. Such candidates fall into the consideration zone. The final qualifying criteria for JRF and eligibility for lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result.

            Students are seeking final declaration of results the moment they have obtained the minimum required marks and ignoring the other steps of deciding final qualifying criteria. This means that they are in the CONSIDERATION ZONE and they have yet to meet the final qualifying criteria to be decided later by UGC. To be in the consideration zone does not mean that they are eligible for receiving certificates.

Counter Opinion: Let’s see the para 7 of the notification of June 2012 which is about scheme of test and compare it with scheme of test of December 2012 and December 2011 to get clear picture.

June 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. However, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship shall be decided by UGC before 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. The final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship both and Eligibility for Lectureship only shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result. It may be noted that the qualifying criteria decided by UGC will be final and binding.”

December 2011: “However, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result.”

            Firstly, if you read the above court view no. 5, the court has upheld the view that UGC has mentioned it that final qualifying criteria will be decided before the result and students are too excited to wait for final qualifying criteria forgetting the other two steps.

            Secondly, look at or read the scheme of test under December 2011 and June 2012, you will come to know the same information and surprisingly, UGC did not apply or impose new final qualifying criteria for December 2011 as UGC did for June 2012.

            Thirdly, read the scheme of test under the notification for December 2012 above, the so called steps which are being talked about by the Court are mentioned in it and not in the notification of June 2012. So, this is crystal clear that there in no point of CONSIDERATION ZONE as far as the notification of June 2012 is concerned.

Court’s View : 6] After the final result was prepared, more relaxation was granted and candidates figured amongst the top 7% of all candidates declared as qualified through supplementary result.

            All these steps taken by UGC are accordance with clause 7 of the notification and it does not mean ‘a change in the rule of game’ as it was already pre-meditated in the notification. UGC has not acted arbitrarily.

Counter Opinion: This move of UGC to relax the criteria and to declare top 7% candidates passed is contrary to the rational behind determining final qualifying criteria of aggregate. Is it logical to plead that the candidate who has obtained aggregate marks is eligible for lectureship and simultaneously, to declare students passed who have not aggregated marks but are in the list of top 7% candidates also eligible? What is logic behind determining two different qualifying criteria?

            Surprisingly, top 15% candidates were considered eligible according to notification of December 2012. Why is this difference of 7% and 15 % between in two examinations? What is the rational behind it? And as UGC has told in the court and the Court too upheld this point that UGC mentioned in the notification of June 2012 clearly that another final criteria will be applied. Did the Court not see this difference between two notifications that the notification of December 2012 clarifies it and what is clarified in the notification of December 2012 is not mentioned in the notification of June 2012. And most importantly, if according to court the move of UGC was pre-meditated, then why did UGC modify it in the notification of December 2012?

Court’s View : 7] UGC constituted a Moderation Committee consisting of experts for finalising the qualifying criteria under the statutory powers and under the laid down criteria in the notification.

Counter Opinion: The moderation Committee was constituted after the examination and its recommendation were applied to the result even after the publication of result. Then how can UGC say that it was pre-meditated.

            My humble advice to UGC is that they should not declare the passing criteria of 35%, 35% and 40% in the notification. They should arrange the examination, they should form the moderation committee and let the committee decide what the passing criteria will be or should be. If everything is to be finalised later under the special powers of UGC, then what is needed to publish notification? From the scholarship examination for 4^h standard to NET examination, to mention passing criteria in the notification should not be mandatory if another final criteria is to be applied or imposed later.

Court’s View : 8] “Clearing the National Eligibility Test” means clearing the final results, not merely passing in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, which is the only initial step, not final.

Counter Opinion: The steps referred above and upheld by the Court are mentioned clearly in the notification of December 2012 and not in the notification of June 2012. I have pasted it above as it is.

Court’s View : 9] No violation of statutory provisions so the court can not interfere in those issue which fall within the domain of the experts. The court shall not sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies that are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts are.

Counter Opinion: We are also of the view that the court should not but the point is whether experts are performing their duties DEMOCRATICALLY or NOT.

Court’s View : 10] UGC may lay down any ‘qualifying criteria’. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria which can not be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.

Counter Opinion: Definitely, UGC should lay down any qualifying criteria but UGC should notify it first before taking the examination. To change the rules of the game after the game is over i.e. after result being published, is clearly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory.

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

Coming soon:
Judgment on SLP and Counter Opinion : Part Third
The Key To Success