Smt. Krishna Nath vs University Grants Commission And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2856 Cal

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                               APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

                           WPA 15372 of 2014

                            Smt. Krishna Nath

                                   Vs.

                 University Grants Commission and Others.

For the Petitioner                   : Mr. Subir Sanyal, Adv.
                                       Mr. Ratul Biswas, Adv.

                                         Ms. Sumouli Sarkar, Adv.

                                         Mr. Sagnik Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

                                         Mr. Ishan Bhattacharya, Adv.

                                         Mr. Aranya Basu, Adv.

For the W.B.C.S.C.                   : Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mandal, Adv.
                                         Mrs. Bandana Mandal, Adv.


For the U.G.C.                       : Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Adv.


Last Heard on                        : 02.05.2022.

Judgment on                          : 13.05.2022.

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioner appeared in the UGC National Eligibility Test for

Junior Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureship conducted by

the University Grants Commission on 24.06.2012. The petitioner

belongs to the O.B.C. category and the petitioner's candidature was

considered by the UGC after which the petitioner was allotted a Roll No.

The petitioner seeks a mandamus on the UGC, in particular the Deputy

Secretary, UGC (respondent no. 3) to withdraw a communication dated

05.12.2013 by which the petitioner was declared disqualified in the

UGC-NET. The petitioner also seeks a direction on the UGC for

upholding the qualification of the petitioner in terms of a Notification

dated 18.09.2012.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places various

documents to show that the UGC categorized the petitioner as a S.C.

candidate which would be evident from the impugned communication

dated 05.12.2013. Counsel also points to the discrepancy in the marks

awarded to the petitioner as would be evident from the relevant

annexure in the writ petition and the case made out by the UGC in the

affidavit-in-opposition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the UGC relies on UGC Notification

under which a minimum percentage to be obtained by the candidates in

the O.B.C. and S.C/S.T as well as general categories have been

specified. Counsel also relies on Clause 5 of the Notification dated

18.09.2012 which provides that UGC will not entertain queries with

regard to OMR answer-sheets after 30 days from the publication of

results.

4. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties,

admittedly there are certain patent discrepancies in the case made out

by the UGC which are evident from the records. First, the mark-sheet of

NET June, 2012 of the UGC distributes the marks of the petitioner in

Papers I, II, III as 52.00%, 52.00% and 62.67% respectively with the

aggregate of 56.57%. On the other hand, in the affidavit in opposition,

according to UGC, the marks secured by the petitioner in Paper III is

64.00% and the aggregate is 57.14%. It is therefore clear that the UGC

itself has relied on a distribution which is different from its own mark-

sheet of NET June, 2012. Second, in the impugned communication of

05.12.2013, UGC had stated that the petitioner was provisionally

qualified as a S.C. candidate which is factually incorrect since the

petitioner was always an O.B.C candidate. Third, the Notification of the

UGC states that for O.B.C (non-creamy layer) candidates, the qualifying

percentage in Paper I is 35%, in Paper II 35% and in Paper III 67.5%

rounded off to 68. The Notification further states that the candidates

would have to obtain a minimum required marks in each Paper

separately. If the percentages awarded to the petitioner as reflected in

the affidavit-in-opposition of UGC is taken into consideration, the

petitioner, as an O.B.C candidate, fulfilled the minimum marks

percentage in both Paper I and Paper II by falling short of 3% marks in

Paper III. Next, the clause in the Notification giving power to UGC for

deciding final qualifying criterion for Junior Research Fellowship and

Eligibility for Lectureship is unilateral and arbitrary. There is no

intelligible criterion stated by UGC anywhere, including in the said

Notification, as to the basis of requiring 67.5% rounded of to 68 in Paper

III. There is also a 45% given in brackets as a qualifying percentage in

Paper III. This itself is unclear to the Court and the required percentage

in Paper III has not been explained on behalf of UGC. Moreover, the

Notification dated 18.09.2012 of the UGC for the result of the UGC-NET

for Junior Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureship held on

24.06.2012 includes the Roll No of the petitioner as having provisionally

qualified for award of Junior Research Fellowship. Hence, the impugned

letter of 05.12.2013 declaring the petitioner disqualified for the reasons

stated in the said letter does not have any factual basis or any basis as

would appear from the documents on record.

5. University Grants Commission vs Neha Anil Bobde; (2013) 10 SCC

519 has been cited for the proposition that the Court shall generally not

sit in an appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies.

The Supreme Court stated that UGC has been entrusted with the duty

of taking steps for the determination and maintenance of standards of

teaching, examination and research in the University as the UGC is an

expert body for ensuring such standards. There are no two views about

the proposition that the UGC is an expert body. However, the facts in

the present case show that the UGC has itself presented two views and

there is an expressed discrepancy in the marks awarded to the

petitioner even by its own records. Clause 5 of the Notification dated

18.09.2012, relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the UGC of

stipulated 30 days for entertaining queries is also not relevant since the

UGC itself has provided the marks awarded to the petitioner in its

affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 25.08.2014 which is more than 2

years after the date on which the examination was conducted.

6. In view of the above reasons, this Court is inclined to allow the

writ petition in terms of prayer (a). The UGC is directed to withdraw the

impugned letter dated 05.12.2013 and uphold the result of the

petitioner in the Notification dated 18.09.2012. WPA 15372 of 2014 is

disposed of in terms of this judgment.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the respective parties upon fulfilment of requisite formalities.

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J)