Monday, 7 October 2013

The Injustice: A detailed study of June 2012 NET : Part First

Dear Friends,
                   
< THIS IS A MUST READ SERIES OF ARTICLES BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO HELP REVIEW PETITION, TOO. I feel extremely glad today by seeing the huge response to my invitation to readers to share their views, opinions, comments and perspectives. I am posting another letter to you written by one of the true victims from Kerala, in Commerce subject

and is a petitioner of Kerala High Court named Sam Saran . Since his orientation is so wide that the readers need to go through the documents given as appendix and without a detailed understanding on the appendix documents, the readers can’t follow the views clearly and completely.
                 Seeing the length of the letter, I have divided this letter in the series of articles.  YOU can also share your views with other readers cum victims through this blog. Feel free to write me at askyuvi2012@gmail.com. I have posted as it is. This view is purely of him only. I AM VERY THANKFUL TO SAM SARAN.

Regards,
Yuvi
A letter written by Sam Saran:
Dear Friends,
Everyone knows what already happened up to the order of SC. What next is going on, but generally most of candidates including leaders of fight are preparing for next exam.
Notification and however statement:
The notification for June 2012 NET exam stated the minimum criteria table. There were two statements just below the table.
1. Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required marks in each Paper separately as mentioned above will be considered for final preparation of result.
2. However, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result.
    The first statement is a declaration. It states all those who clear minimum marks should be considered for final preparation of result. It should be the target of candidates. There is no indication of consideration zone which is referred by UGC later. It declares that all candidates those who fail to get the minimum will be eliminated from result.
    The second statement “however” is precautionary in nature. It is a statement with nominal value added to use to meet abnormal situations in future. For many of bye-laws and notification there will be such statements, for which in the normal course of action, it has no use. But it is very important in abnormal cases. For example if you are a sports club official and organise a tournament, you prepare a bye law for that specifying all the terms and conditions of the tournament. At the end you may add a clause that “The committee has the power to change/modify the terms and conditions specified here at any time and the participants are liable to follow the same”. And suppose on a match day, people came to stadium, both teams came in to the ground and suddenly you announce –“today’s match is postponed”. You claim that clause empowers you to do so and so your announcement. It is illegal because nothing specially happened in the normal course of action. But the postponing of match was done because you got a confirmed phone call that a bomb is placed in stadium, you can postpone. Any participant if asked for compensation against loss for postponement, you can use the clause because something against the normal course of action happened. The ‘however’ statement of UGC was made like this. If you go through statistics of exam, you can see only 35% of candidates has scored minimum. It is not an abnormal result that should be restricted. If 75 or 80% of total appeared were scored the minimum mentioned criteria, the usage of however clause and increasing the criteria may be justifiable.

Announcement of criteria:
               Any eligibility test must have criteria. It should be announced early before the role of examinee/candidates completed. The ‘however statement’ is insufficient to put a clear cut idea of criteria. It will not provide a target to be achieved for students. The preparation for such eligibility exam is planned on the basis of criteria. A student, already having confidence on his knowledge and another one who prepared nothing has to make various plans about his preparation. Without a clear cut idea on target, how can he prepare for eligibility exam? If it was a competitive exam, can try for maximum of his best effort and wait for the result. But Lectureship only is an eligibility type and no question of competition. If it was conducted like a competitive exam, UGC had responsibility to announce it early that NET is conducting like a competitive exam and criteria will be fixed on the basis of primary result. They have done it for December 2012. They agreed there was some fault in their part in June 2012; see the Supreme Court order page no 14 and 15.
Theoretically there are differences between eligibility test and competitive exam. See appendix. So it is agreed that for eligibility test there is no need of filtering or final criteria. Only need criteria which should be announced early before exam and looking whether candidate has achieved it or not. If the authority wants to restrict the result of such an eligibility test, they should announce higher criteria early, so that candidates can prepare well. In page 15 of Kerala High court order, there is a statement from counter affidavit of UGC- “Since it is an objective type examination, qualifying criteria can only be determined later”. If it was a competitive one, this is OK. But for eligibility test there is no need of taking the whole performance of applied candidates and selecting some of them. Yet, for an argument, we can agree, UGC cannot determine 65% and less to each category, before the exam as they are not astrologists to predict how many candidates will be achieve the percentage. However the top 7% criteria was announcable early in the notification which enable students to clear understanding the nature and degree of competition in the exam.
                 Many of the June failed has passed in December. They have passed only because they got an idea from bad experience of June, that a 65% only will be somewhere they can ensure victory and they have prepared for getting such a percentage. They could have passed in the June itself if UGC had announced the criteria early. 

Unjustifiable increase in criteria:
Suppose UGC had made 55% for General, 52% for OBC and 50% aggregate for PH/SC/ST and announced the result, there may not have problem. We can see that total of 57450 candidates passed in June including those who passed in supplementary result with very low percentage near to minimum. If instead of main result and later supplementary UGC has taken the above said criteria, only a 5000 more candidates (total nearly 62000) will be passed. Such a result would be rational because of uniform criteria. There would not have complaint like 40% passed but 64.57% failed. Though some of people have misunderstood minimum will be sufficient to pass out of vague notification, but would have tried to achieve more than that and many of them believed there will be some other criteria like a 5% increase in the paper minimum. Such people will not have complaint if criteria were 55% for general and so on. 60% marks enables a candidate for first class in many exams and so putting 65% was too much high.
                From behavioral/ response based view of victims, the 55% for general, 52% for OBC and 50% for other looks practicable. It ensures no one without 50% came in passed list. Almost all the victim candidates both emerged their presence as petitioners or in facebook (Total near to 10 000 only out of huge 146700 victims) are scorers above 50% aggregate. Others are candidates who mentally accepted the failure because of their very low percentage. So it was a fault from the part of victims to demand “all minimum scored should be declared passed” and stressing the main arguments in court towards this direction. Even such people who scored high marks were not bothered or aware of the degree of injustice and were unorganized, and then it was foolish to run behind ‘failure accepted candidates’ and trying to stop them and say “Please stop, keep this certificate”. The candidates, who had scored 64.57% or just below that, had vigor and interest in getting their certificate. If such people had concentrated in fulfilling their demand by political pressure to reduce cut off to 55% and so on, also such a demand was placed in petition as a remedy to vague notification, the court may allow and they may be succeeded. Instead of doing these we argued for universal and “all minimum should be declared passed” argument for which even the beneficiaries (Those who scored very near to minimum or below 50%) has not interested or aware of it.
Unsolved anomalies
Supreme Court order Page 15 states as follows (as per SLP filed by UGC)
“It noted that the proportion of students who made it varied hugely across the subjects, from above 30% to as low as less than 1% in many subjects”

Nagpur bench order Page 24 & 25 (As per affidavit of UGC)

“The Committee found that uniform high cutoff marks across various disciplines was not proper since it noted that the proportion of students who passed varied hugely from 1% to 30% for various subjects”

These two are the justification of supplementary result by UGC. After main result there included about top 30% of applied candidates in some categories of some subjects. In some other subjects, there was only 1% of total appeared was passed and so a supplementary result announced.
Now look at part of the final qualifying criteria table provided by UGC through RTI

   

     
From the above table we get the following points
1. The criteria were fixed same as main result for some subjects (1to 5). There was no change in supplementary result and therefore will not have supplementary result for that subject
2. The criteria have changed/reduced partially for some subjects. (6 and 7) Such change was only for some category of that subject and for other categories the criteria have kept same of main result.
3. The criteria have fully changed/reduced for another group of subjects. (8 to 10)
On the basis of this we can group the subjects into three groups
Group A- No change in criteria and includes management, philosophy and Hindi
Group B- Partial change and include Commerce, history etc.
Group C- Fully changed and includes MCJ, Computer etc.
    For Group A subjects, there will not be supplementary result, because no change in criteria and can assume more than top 7% (up to 30% as referred by UGC in court orders)has been already passed in the main result itself. So in main result, for management, we can assume top 30% of all applied may have passed and so there is no need of further grievance.
    For Group B subjects, there may have top 30% result for some categories and therefore, supplementary result to only other categories to compensate the loss occurred for that category.
    For Group C subjects, all categories faced loss and main result was lower than 7% and so supplementary declared for every category
Following table will illustrate a model main result of representative subjects



             So in management more than enough candidates passed and main result itself mount to top 30% to General and OBC, while 20% each for SC and PH. In Commerce, more than enough candidates passed in SC/ST/PH categories. So supplementary result was restricted to only General and OBC. In MCJ, as results was very low and huge number of candidates passed in supplementary in all categories for compensating 1% result.
            Do supplementary result solve full of anomalies? If there were top 30% for some subject, declaring top 7% in others will solve these inequality? Every subject and category is equal. So in any of result became top 30% others should also be 30%. If SC/ST/PH categories of Commerce have got 30% of result, then why did general and OBC is restricted to top 7%? If all the categories of management students got more than 20% or 30% result, why do commerce students restricted to top 7%
The table of supplementary passed  model result was as follows





After the supplementary result the consolidated result table will be as follows




              Look at the anomaly existing still after supplementary result. For some subjects and categories it is 30%, while for some others it is only top 7%. This is not a manipulation- but cross section of actually what happened.

            Another factor is that inspite of the top 30% result; about 1500 candidates in management, 400 candidates in geography have passed in supplementary result with above 65% marks. I don’t know if those candidates have more than 65% or 60% or 55% for their categories, why don’t they declared passed early in the main result. Some of them surely will have scored below the criteria, ie. Below 65%, 60% or 55% as the category may be, but when heard that UGC is going to declare a supplementary result, have approached politicians or bribed officials with money and their score must have been added to the 65.14% for including them in the cleared list. Otherwise if they have scored the percentage fixed as criteria to pass in the main result, there is no reason to exclude them in the main result and include later in the supplementary result. If it was only some candidates with such type we can guess it was a miscalculation, but there is 2000 candidates all over passed in these subjects like management, geography, philosophy and sociology who passed in supplementary result with marks of the main result.

Consideration zone (CZ) and final consideration/treatment:
Consider the following result table for general category




        Here you can see multiple anomalies. The 64.57% scored brilliant candidate has been declared failed but ‘45.71% scored candidate’ is treated as brilliant. Can anyone say what difference between Dilna and Renu is in the final result? Dilna has scored above minimum, and Renu scored very low. According to UGC both are same and both got same treatment in final result. Considering dilna in the consideration zone does not provide any benefit to her. If this was a PG exam and 65% were criteria for first class, she would have got second class for her marks. But scoring above minimum and not minimum (and even 0%) is equally treated by UGC. Then what about the relevancy of UGC’s guarantee statement in notification that “only such candidates…… for final preparation of result”.  What consideration do we get by scoring minimum? Do we have a separate consideration from those who cannot score minimum? No. We have thrashed out like them. And we are treated equal to those who scored 0%.

The ground realities and future:
Everybody knows that Supreme Court favoured UGC. The apex body of law interpreters supported UGC and approved that they have power to change the criteria as they think fit to do so to standardize the nexus of selection of teaching community. Still a review by same panel of Judges exists for victims. It is a ground reality. Now victims cannot make the SLP rejected as it was converted to a civil appeal and without further hearing, the judges announced the final order. A post mortem of what happened has no relevance. The over confidence of petitioners to continue the hearing with high court lawyers only (not renting a good efficient Supreme Court Advocates) had to pay for an irrecoverable loss.
          Before thinking future, please have a look in to the reality of victims. As I mentioned early, there was 1 46 700 number of victims, but only nearly 10 000 has emerged in to the scene either as petitioners or as facebook users. Nearly 1 35 000 victims are in the unknown zone- No doubt most of them are with very low percentage and mentally accepted failure even before declaration of main result. The statistical theory of distribution says a good percentage of scorers will be concentrated on nearby the minimum, and it is true that 65% of candidates even cannot score the paper minimum. That means 2 04 150 out of nearly 5 70 000 has scored above minimum. Among those 2 04 150, about 43 000 passed with above 65%, 60% and 55%. (Look at the concentration of victim table for more details). It will not be wrong if about 1 20 000 among 1 46 700 of victims has scored only between aggregate 37.71% (Lowest minimum of SC) and 50%. In other words, a maximum of 26 700 (146 700- 120 000) has scored above 50% in all categories. Among these 26 700, a 10 000 are really victims and emerged into the scene with fight mentality.
Now look at the various intensions behind fight for a NET certificate of June 2012. If there is 10 000 victims, their common aim is NET certificate, but by NET certificate their prospects are different.
1. Service related- Some of the petitioners are working in colleges for last few years (extend from 1 year to 20 years). For them UGC NET certificate of June 2012 is must for getting their salary at UGC scale with effect from atleast September 2012. A December 2012 certificate (if they passed in December) may produce a loss of atleast Rs 2 00 000 from their salary. Some of them are in the threat of dismissal from present Job too. In Kerala, many of such candidates are admitted in Govt aided colleges (where salary is provided by Govt but the recruitment is by management by paying from Rs 10 lakh to 45lac on the basis availability of NET holders in subjects as a donation to private management of colleges and will not give any receipt for payment of money). Such candidates are also in a situation to get certificate if June 2012 at any cost. But they are very low in number. And they have still alternative option to continue job by political or other interventions with future NET certificate. Eg- Just one day after Supreme Court order, Calicut university in Kerala, restructured the validity of NET certificate from date of passing to date of exam so that the December 2012 passed candidates can avail the salary from January 2013 onwards, otherwise they were approved NET passed only after march 2013. This was done by the pressure from June victims (and passed in December 2012) already joined in service.
2. Quest for justice and career consideration- Some of people in the emerged 10 000 among victims are just fighters for justice. Their mind does not accept the injustice towards them. Most of them are from the states where no notification for Jobs published after June 2012 results. These category also include the candidates from states which notifications for Govt jobs published but candidates  are in the age of their early career (May be below 25 or 30 years) and have many chance in future to be recruited up to the age of 40. For those two kinds of people June 2012 NET certificate is not necessary or a must one. If they have passed in December 2012 or may be passed in June 2013 or later, they think equal value (No separate prominence for June 2012) certificate. Among the 10 000 victims emerged, around 9000 includes in this category
3. Anxiety and lack of confidence- A small group of candidates are engaged in fighting, just because they think, it is the only way to get certificate. The top15% rule implemented from December has increased their anxiety of cracking future NET. Even among the 64.53% scored candidates, many of them have again disqualified in December 2012 for such narrow margins and it reconstituted their prejudice as they cannot crack NET in future. They are also very few in number but for such people June 2012 certificate is not must and essential to regain the already occurred loss.
4. The real losers/victims- these candidates are those who reached in the end part of recruitment age (normally above 35 years). In Kerala situation, PSC has already called for Govt posts in December 2012, for which last date was January 5, 2013. The candidates needed to qualify NET before the last date. A representation given in PSC made them apply for posts in the light of Kerala High Court Single Bench order. But they are now disqualified after SC order. As mentioned in Kerala, the other aided sector needs 40 lac rupees for post. The unaided self financing sector, many staff is ready to work with Rs 6000 (having NET). The next PSC notification will be after 5-6 years and these category people cannot apply then because of age limit. These are only class who require June 2012 NET certificate must. Besides Kerala, there are people in some other states face same situation. But their total is very low. They have no use for December 2012 certificate and only June 2012 certificate will provide the last opportunity for them.
So, if you agree it or not, there is only less than 1000 people are victims who requires NET June 2012 certificate as a must and essential one. For others, they have not lost so many or no irrecoverable opportunities. This is a real threat to the review petition.
A review petition is one with no argument sessions in court and no need of advocates for hearing. The petition is circulated among the same judges who made the final order. If they think their earlier view on the matter was faulty, they may accept it and refer for other benches. The petitioners have no chance to ask for bench change. Any political leader normally will not intervene in the matters decided by Supreme Court. So a review petition must be submitted very carefully.
                   I am not an expert in law. But has observed the whole scenario from initial stage to this stage and so suggest the following. If anyone feels it is right please take initiatives to include in the review petition
1. Only 35% has scored minimum score and it is not a situation requiring restriction of result. On second filtration, the 0% scored and 64.57% scored becomes equal among those who applied for LS.
2. For compensations to anomaly, all subjects and all categories should have get result of top 30%. To compensate the 1%-30% result difference in main result, UGC has announced only top7% result, which is still anomaly between subjects and between the each category of same subjects. For example commerce students have not got the consideration of management students. General and OBC category of Commerce students have not got the consideration of the SC/ST/PH candidates of commerce students itself
3. Instead of asking a universal “all minimum scored should be declared passed, ask for reducing cut off and declare another supplementary result as mentioned in this document. Most of emerged candidates will be benefitted and we need not work for the people in underground and people who mentally accepted the failure before result. It may be allowed if asked in humanitarian ground
4. In Supreme Court order page 14 and 15 refers the UGC’s statement on the two type of grievance
Quote from SC order
(i) Grievances related to insufficient information in the advertisement:  The Committee noted that the advertisement clearly stated that securing minimum marks required in each paper do not amount to eligibility for the purpose of NET. In the past, scores in all the three papers were taken into account while preparing the list of selected candidates for the purposes of JRF. At the same time, the Committee felt that in future the announcement should make it very clear that the scores in all the three papers shall be taken into account for NET as well as JRF and that Eligibility for NET shall be determined separately for each subject by taking into account the performance of all the candidates

(ii) Grievances related to the uniform and high cut-off for UGC-NET across various disciplines: The Committee examined the pattern of marks secured in different subjects and the proportion of candidates who were eligible for UGC-NET based on the uniform cut-off approved by the Moderation Committee. It noted that the proportion of students who made it varied hugely across the subjects, from above 30% to as low as less than 1% in many subjects. The Committee felt that this method puts candidates from several subjects to disadvantage. A fair method must also take into account the performance relative to other candidates. Accordingly, the Committee recommended a correction in the list of candidates eligible for UGC-NET held in June 2012. For this correction, additional criteria (b below) shall be used and any candidate who meets either of the following two criteria shall be eligible for UGC-NET:

The first grievance UGC agrees that there was some fault and says, in future they will give more clearly. They admit that up to December 2011, UGC has taken only Paper III for LS only and other papers are just for minimum to value paper III and they have not announced this time (for June 2012) that the performance in all 3 papers will be evaluated and will be taken in final preparation of result. So candidates were understood that only performance in paper III is important matter and so other papers need just entry level minimum like December 2011.  So it can be argued that there is no compensation or measures have not been taken to solve this anomaly. The second grievance has partly cleared by top 7% result in supplementary (Not top 30% as already given to some subjects)
This is the real ground to ask for compensation. We can ask for some reduction in cut off which will solve the problem of emerged candidates. Asking for top 30% result may help the candidates of some subjects only.
Candidates who are in the category 4 referred in ground realities must need the June 2012 certificate valid from even September 2012 itself to defend the PSC examination. So another suggestion can be made to help such candidates and those who really need June 2012 certificate valid from early. Note that on September 8, 2013 UGC had conducted a supplementary exam for candidates who had misunderstood the center of exam. Likewise ask for a supplementary exam for June 2012. Make a prayer in the review petition to conduct the examination and ask for directing UGC to conduct such an examination with a guarantee that issued certificate will have validity from the old result. UGC can fix the criteria at 65%, 60% and 55% itself and we the students can prepare it for because we are aware of the criteria. By passing the same we will be proved as people with quality. It can be asked as the grievance for first one said in page 14 and 15 of SC order. As we are students and asking for exam is suitable quality of a students. Judges, if prayed in review petition, may direct UGC to do so as they already said we have sympathy to students. This is the only way to get June 2012 certificate I think. If my observation and direction of thought is wrong please forgive me as I am a category 4 candidate.

Regards,
Sam Saran 
Coming soon:
Part B-Supplementary result and doubts
Supplementary results for NET June 2012 and some unasked questions

No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured post

hi