WP(C)/31108/2012 of RAJEEV.K Vs UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION on 31 December 2012

JUDGMENT

Whether 'Rules of the game' could be changed during the middle of the game, is the issue involved both the cases.

2. The matter relates to acquisition of the requisitequalification for appointment as 'Lecturer' by clearing the'National Eligibility Test' ( NET for short). The test was notified tobe conducted by the UGC, stipulating the norms as to theparticulars of the papers, the minimum marks to be obtained andsuch other details. The examination was scheduled to beconducted on 24.06.2012.

3. The petitioners participated in the examination andaccording to them they have crossed the hurdle, with regard tothe minimum marks prescribed and notified. But the UGC, justa few days before the declaration of the result, sought to changethe norms, whereby some modification was made with regard tothe 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 quiteto the disadvantage of persons like the petitioners, who werenever told of such a course earlier, as a result of which, theycould not get the clearance. It was in the said circumstance, thatsimilarly situated persons approached this Court by filing severalwrit petitions, which were considered together and a commonjudgment was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on17/12/2012 ( W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 & connected cases).

4. As per the said judgment, the course pursued by theUGC was held as not correct or sustainable and accordingly, theimpugned proceeding stipulating the category-wise qualifyingcriteria for lectureship was set aside. It was declared by thisCourt, that all the petitioners, who had obtained the separateminimum prescribed in the notification for Papers I, II and III,had cleared the 'NET' and appropriate follow up action wasdirected to be taken, to issue certificates to them, within 'onemonth' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Thepetitioners in these writ petitions seek for similar benefit, asgiven by this Court in the aforesaid judgment.

5. Sri.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, entered appearance on behalf of the respondents andmade a submission that the respondents are very muchaggrieved of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge andthat steps are being taken to file writ appeal. It is pointed outthat, if the relief sought for is granted, it will cause severehardship to the UGC. It is also brought to the notice of this Courtthat in most of these cases, interim orders have been passed, interms of the final verdict as mentioned hereinbefore.

6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that thejudgment already passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 and connected cases is purely based on thequestion of law, as there is no dispute with regard to the factsand figures. The question of law has been considered andanswered in favour of the petitioners concerned and a declarationof law has been made by this Court. The Court also consideredthe scope and applicability of judicial precedents cited from boththe sides particularly, the law declared by the Apex Court inK.Manjusree v. State of Andra Pradesh and another ( 2008(3) SCC 512) , the Full Bench of this Court inDr.Cyril Johnsonv. State of Kerala and others ( 2009(4) KHC 404( FB) and a

Division Bench of this Court inJayachandran v. High Court ofKerala( 2010 (4) KLT 49) (to which I was also a member), insupport of the case projected by the petitioners, to the effect thatthe rules of selection could not be changed after commencementof the process of selection. The reliance sought to be placedfrom the part of the UGC with reference to the recent judgmentof the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962 of 2011 withregard to the question of minimum qualifying marks for 'vivavoce', introduced just two or three days before thecommencement of the oral tests, though it was not stipulated inthe advertisement issued by the PSC, was also considered thereinand it was distinguished for the reason that, such stipulation wasvery much incorporated in the relevant rules, but omitted to beincorporated in the advertisement and hence held as notapplicable. It was after considering the rival contentions and alsothe binding judicial precedents, that a finding was rendered,leading to the judgment as aforesaid.

7. As mentioned hereinbefore, the verdict passed by thelearned Single Judge is rather declaratory in nature. It has beenheld by the Apex Court that, if the verdict is of declaratory character, it shall be made applicable to all who are similarlysituated; irrespective of the fact whether they are parties to theverdict or not. This is reported in Ashwani Kumar and others

v. State of Bihar and others(1997(2) SCC 1). Since thepetitioners seek for the benefit of such declaratory judgment, thisCourt does not find any reason to take a different course.

8. In the above circumstances, all these writ petitions areallowed, holding that the petitioners are entitled to have thebenefit of the judgment passed in W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 &connected cases. The petitioners, who have obtained theseparate minimum marks prescribed in the notification for PapersI, II and III, are declared as cleared the 'NET'. Appropriate followup action shall be taken by the concerned respondent to issuecertificates to them at the earliest, at any rate within 'one month'from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, subject tocuring the defects if any pointed out, from the part of therespondents.

9. Considering the fact that petitioners are being giventhe benefit of the above declaratory judgment, it is alsonecessary to put the petitioners on alert, as to the steps stated as being taken by the UGC to challenge the basic judgment, byway of Writ Appeal.

10. In the above circumstances, it is made clear that, ifthe writ appeal being filed by the UGC comes to be allowed infavour of the UGC, naturally the law declared by the DivisionBench will be made applicable to all the petitioners herein, as thebenefit of declaration will stand equally applicable to both thesides.

Taking note of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, the petitioners in all these casesare directed to furnish an additional set of the concerned writpetition to the learned Standing Counsel forthwith, to save timein respect of the procedural formalities to be completed.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE

kp.