Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar And Others vs University Grant Commission And ... on 21 December, 2012
Bench: Arun Tandon
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 67762 of 2012
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar And Others
Respondent :- University Grant Commission And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Arvind Srivastava,Ashok Kumar Dubey
Respondent Counsel :- Ritvik Upadhya
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Petitioners before this Court, who are five in number, were the candidates in the National Educational Test (NET) conducted by the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.), in the year 2012. They seek quashing of the results declared by the U.G.C. in respect of the said NET examination. They also seek quashing of the criteria of obtaining aggregate 65% marks in aggregate in all three papers for qualifying the NET examination and lastly to award 72% marks to petitioner no. 1.
Shri Arvind Srivastava, counsel for the petitioners submitted that fixation of 65% marks in aggregate in all three papers is arbitrary and that there is no resolution of the U.G.C. for such fixation of the aggregate minimum marks. He then submits that the power conferred upon the U.G.C. to determine the minimum aggregate marks for passing the NET examination is un-canalized, therefore, arbitrary. He lastly submits that as per the brochure published by the U.G.C. for the NET examination in Clause 8, the minimum marks to be obtained in each of the three papers marked as paper nos. 1, 2 and 3 were notified separately for each category of the candidates namely General, Other Backward Classes, Physically Handicapped and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe etc.
There is no dispute in respect of fixation of such qualifying marks, therefore, nothing further is required to be added. Under the second sub clause to the clause provided for the said minimum qualifying marks, it is further provided as follows :
?However, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and eligibility for Lecturer-ship shall be decided by the U.G.C. before declaration of the result.?
It is in exercise of this power conferred under the brochure that the U.G.C. has determined 65% marks as the minimum aggregate in all the three papers for being declared qualified for J.R.F. and Lecturer-ship. It is, therefore, clear that 65% aggregate marks have been fixed for the NET examination only in respect of being declared qualified for JRF and Lecturer-ship. It is not necessary for the U.G.C. that any fresh resolution being made as suggested by the petitioner. The power to determine the minimum aggregate flows from the decision of the U.G.C. to hold the selections and the term notified in respect of the said examinations as above. Therefore, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has no substance.
So far as the power of the U.G.C. to determine the minimum aggregate is concerned, this Court may record that the U.G.C. comprises of experts on the subject. If the experts on the subject determine a particular percentage to be the minimum required for being declared qualified for JRF and Lecturer-ship, this Court can hardly interfere being not an expert. The petitioners have only made general and vague allegations for categorization of power as un-canalized and arbitrary. Nothing substantial has been pleaded as to how such minimum aggregate of 65% is excessive. General allegations cannot be the basis for any scrutiny by this Court. The second plea also has no substance.
So far as the particular case of petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he is granted liberty to file his objections in respect of questions referred to in paragraph 10 of the petition pointing out the mistakes for claiming the higher marks before the respondent no. 2 (Chairman, University Grants Commission, National Educational Testing (NET) Bureau, South Campus, University of Delhi, Benito Juarez Marg, New Delhi.). If this is done within three weeks along with a certified copy of this order, the respondent no. 2 shall call for the records and shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter.
The last plea qua persons mentioned in paragraph 8 of the present petition having been declared successful is concerned, suffice is to record that minimum 65% in aggregate has been fixed for being declared qualified for JFR/Lecturer-ship only. For all other purpose the minimum marks as disclosed in paragraph 8 have been adhered. It is not the case of the petitioners that the said persons have been declared qualified for JFR/Lecturer-ship. Even otherwise none of the aforesaid persons have been made a party to the petition.
Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (3) ADJ, 242 which deals with the mistakes in key-answers declared by the examining body. There can be no dispute with regard to the proposition which has been laid down in the judgment.
If the marks obtained by the petitioners in the NET examinations have not been declared, let it be done at the earliest.
Writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made herein above.
Dated :21.12.2012
VR/67762/12
