Delhi High Court
Diksha Lamba vs University Grants Commission & ... on 6 April, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on -14.03.2018.
Date of Decision - 06.04.2018.
+ W.P.(C) 5039/2017 & CM No.21684/2017 (for stay)
DIKSHA LAMBA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ilam Paridi, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS
..... Respondent
Through Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Adv for
R-1.
Mr.B.S.Rana, Adv for R-2.
Mr.Amit Bansal, Adv for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
JUDGMENT
REKHA PALLI, J
1. Vide the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought quashing of letter dated
19.11.2015 issued by the Respondent No. 1/University Grants
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Letter"),
whereby the Petitioner was informed that her result of the National
Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as "NET") held on 30.12.2012
was cancelled after three years, on the ground that she did not fulfill
the eligibility criteria for the said examination, since her Master's
degree from the University of Leeds was not equivalent to a
corresponding degree from a recognized Indian university as per the
rules of the Respondent No. 2/Association of Indian Universities.
2. The facts, as emerge from the record, that are relevant for the
determination of the present petition need to be noticed. The
Petitioner, after acquiring a B.A. (Hons.) degree from Hans Raj
College, Delhi University, obtained a Master's degree in Post-
colonial, Literary and Cultural Studies from the University of Leeds,
United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Degree") in
the year 2009. Thereafter, the Petitioner, desirous of pursing her
academic career further, applied for admission to the M.Phil programs
of Jawaharlal Nehru University and Jamia Milia University. The
Petitioner was provisionally accepted for admission in both
Universities, subject to her clearing the entrance exams and interviews
respectively. The Petitioner cleared the entrance exams and interviews
of both Jawaharlal Nehru University and Jamia Milia University.
However, when the Petitioner approached Jamia Milia University to
deposit her admission fee, she was not allowed to do so on the ground
that she was required to get an equivalence certificate from the
Respondent No. 2, certifying that the Subject Degree was equivalent
to a corresponding degree from a recognized Indian university.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of Jamia Milia University to not
grant her admission, in spite of her having qualified the entrance
examination and interview, the Petitioner approached this Court by
way of CWP No. 5285/2011. Vide an interim order dated 29.07.2011,
this Court issued notice in the petition and allowed the Petitioner to
deposit, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. In the meanwhile,
the Petitioner also approached the Respondent No. 2 for an
equivalence certificate with regard to the Subject Degree. The
Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioner that, since the Subject
Degree was only for a duration of one year, as compared to the two-
year duration of a corresponding degree from a recognized Indian
university, the former could not be granted an equivalence certificate
by Respondent No. 2 due its deficiency in terms of duration. However,
vide its letter dated 01.08.2011, the Respondent No. 2 also informed
the Petitioner that it was the admission-giving university's prerogative
to decide the issue of her admission as per their own rules and
regulations. Essentially, this letter allowed the admission-giving
university to decide the issue of the equivalence of the Subject Degree,
as per their own rules and regulations. During the pendency of CWP
No. 5285/2011 before this Court, Jawaharlal Nehru University granted
admission to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner withdrew the said
writ petition, without there being any adjudication on her claim of
equivalence of the Subject Degree.
4. During the course of her M.Phil degree at Jawaharlal Nehru
University, the Petitioner submitted her online application form for the
NET conducted by the Respondent No. 1. At this stage, it may be
noticed that as per the Respondent No. 1's notification regarding
eligibility for the NET (hereinafter referred to as the "Eligibility
Notification"), a candidate who was yet to appear for his/her
qualifying master's degree examination, was also eligible to apply for
the NET, but such a candidate would become eligible for Lectureship
only after passing the master's degree examination within two years
from the date of the NET result with the requisite marks. The
Eligibility Notification also contained a caution that it was the
responsibility of the candidates with degrees from foreign universities,
to ascertain the equivalence of their qualification from the Respondent
No. 2. Clauses 3(ii) and 3(vi) of the Eligibility Notification, read as
under:
"3(ii) Candidates who have appeared OR will be appearing
at the qualifying Master's degree (final year) examination
and whose result is still awaited OR candidates whose
qualifying examinations have been delayed may also apply
for this Test. However, such candidates will be admitted
provisionally and shall be considered eligible for award of
JRF/Lectureship eligibility only after they have passed their
Master's degree examination or equivalent with at least
55% marks (50% marks in case of SC/ST/PWD (Persons
with disability) category candidates). Such candidates must
complete their P.G. degree examination within two years
from the date of NET result with required percentage of
marks, failing which they shall be treated as disqualified."
xxx
"3(vi)Candidates with post-graduate diploma/certificate
course(s) or foreign degree/diploma should in their own
interest, ascertain the equivalence of their course(s)
with Master's degree of recognized Indian universities
from Association of Indian Universities (AIU), New
Delhi."
5. While the Petitioner claims that she was eligible for the NET,
the Respondents urge that she was always aware that her candidature
was only provisional, and the mere fact that an Admission Card had
been issued to her or that she had been allowed to appear in the
examination, did not imply that the Respondent No. 1 had accepted
her candidature. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to Clause 12(ii)
of the Eligibility Notification, which reads as under:-
"12(ii) It may be noted that candidates will not be issued
the Admission Card by the respective NET Coordinating
Universities/Colleges. Candidates should note that their
candidature is strictly provisional. The mere fact that
Admission Card has been issued at the time of online
registration and the candidate is allowed to appear in
the test shall not imply that the Commission has finally
accepted his/her candidature."
6. The Petitioner appeared for the NET on 30.12.2012. As per
notification dated 25.03.2013, vide which the results of the NET were
declared, the Petitioner passed the NET. The notification dated
25.03.2013 also contained a note that a candidate was liable to be
disqualified even after the declaration of the result, if any ineligibility
was subsequently detected. The relevant clause of the said notification
reads as under:-
"4. In the event of any information being found false or
incorrect in the Application Form/OMR Sheet/Answer
Script or detection of any ineligibility, the candidate is
liable to be disqualified even after the declaration of
this result."
7. The Petitioner successfully obtained her M.Phil degree on
06.08.2014 from Jawaharlal Nehru University and submitted her
documents to the Respondent No. 1 vide her letter dated 31.08.2014.
However, she was not given a certificate for having qualified the NET
and, instead, the issue of equivalence of the Subject Degree was
referred to the Respondent No. 2. In turn, the Respondent No. 2, vide
its letter dated 29.09.2015, informed the Respondent No. 1 that the
Subject Degree was not equivalent to a master's degree from a
recognized Indian university as the former was only for a duration of
one year, as compared to the two-year duration of a corresponding
degree from a recognized Indian university, and therefore, due to the
former's deficiency in terms of duration, the two could not be equated.
8. Consequently, vide the Impugned Letter, the Respondent No. 1
declared the Petitioner as disqualified from the NET held on
30.12.2012, on the ground that she was ineligible for the examination.
The Petitioner claims to have learnt about the Impugned Letter only in
May 2017, when she had approached the NET Bureau for the issuance
of a NET Certificate, which she needed in order to submit her
application for the appointment of regular lecturers/assistant
professors in Respondent No. 3/Delhi University.
9. Aggrieved by the Impugned Letter, the Petitioner has preferred
the present petition with a prayer to quash the same and for issuance
of a direction to the Respondent No. 3 to consider and accept her
application forms with the online result of her NET.
10. Arguing for the Petitioner, Ms. Gokhale submits that the action
of the Respondent No. 1 in treating the Petitioner as ineligible only on
the opinion given by the Respondent No. 2 is wholly arbitrary and
illegal. She submits that the Respondent No. 2, which is a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is merely a
private body and its membership is open and voluntary. She,
therefore, contends that all the universities in India are not compelled
to become members of the Respondent No. 2.
11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, since
the Respondent No. 2 is neither a regulatory nor statutory body, it does
not have the power to accord or certify the equivalence of degrees.
She contends that, even otherwise, any restrictions or certifications
granted by the Respondent No. 2 are not binding and places reliance
on the Respondent No. 2's letter dated 01.08.2011 to the Petitioner,
wherein it categorically stated that it had no objections to the issue of
the equivalence of the Subject Degree being resolved by the admission
granting university as per their own rules and regulations. She,
therefore, contends that the refusal of the Respondent No. 2 to certify
the equivalence of degrees is not mandatory or binding in any way on
Respondent No. 1 and such a refusal on the part of Respondent No. 2
cannot be a ground to deny the Petitioner any educational/qualification
or job opportunities.
12. Ms. Gokhale contends that the Respondent No. 1, which is a
statutory body, does not have the power to certify or recognize the
equivalence of degrees. There is nothing in the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "UGC Act") or
the notifications issued by the Respondent No. 1 that provides for the
equivalence of degrees. However, even if it were to be assumed that
Respondent No. 1 has the power to certify or recognize the
equivalence of degrees, it cannot delegate such powers to any private
body such as the Respondent No. 2.
13. Without prejudice to her aforesaid plea, Ms. Gokhale further
contends that, even if the Subject Degree could not be treated as a
valid qualification for issuance of the NET certificate, due to non-
grant of an equivalence certificate by the Respondent No. 2, the
Petitioner's M.Phil degree from Jawaharlal Nehru University was
enough to qualify her for a NET certificate. To buttress her argument,
Ms. Gokhale draws my attention to Section 22(3) of the UGC Act. As
per Sections 22(1) and 22(2) of the UGC Act, the right to confer
degrees vests only with:
a. Universities established under a Central Act;
b. Universities established under a Provincial Act;
c. Universities established under a State Act;
d. an institution deemed to be a University under section 3
of the UGC Act; or
e. an institution specially empowered by an Act of
Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
14. As per Section 22(3) of the UGC Act, "degree" means "any
such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central
Government, be specified in this behalf by the [University Grants
Commission] by notification in the official Gazette." The learned
counsel for the Petitioner then draws my attention to notification dated
01.12.1958 of the Respondent No. 1, which specifies the degrees for
the purposes of Section 22(3). As per the said notification, an M.Phil
degree is a master's degree. Referring to a subsequent notification
dated 05.07.2014, which was relied upon by Respondent No. 1 and
which supersedes all earlier Gazette notifications pertaining to the
specifications of degrees, Ms. Gokhale contends that the subsequent
notification does not state that an M.Phil degree is not a Master's
degree but merely specifies the nomenclature of degrees and the entry
level qualifications for the same. She further contends that in any
event, once the Petitioner possesses a valid higher degree of M.Phil
from a duly recognized University such as Jawaharlal Nehru
University, the Petitioner was eligible for a NET certificate on the
basis of such higher degree.
15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Isllam v. Aligarh
Muslim University & Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 546] to contend that, once
Jawaharlal Nehru University had duly considered the equivalence of
the Subject Degree while granting admission to the Petitioner in its
M.Phil degree program, which M.Phil degree is admittedly valid even
as per Respondent No. 1 itself, the Respondents are estopped from
contending at this stage that she does not hold the valid qualification
for the NET.
16. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Eligibility Notification allows those candidates to appear for the NET
who will be appearing for a master's degree. As per Clause 3(ii) of the
said notification, such candidates shall be eligible for award of
lectureship only after passing the master's degree exam within two
years from the declaration of the NET result. Therefore, she contends
that, in view of the fact that the Petitioner had admittedly commenced
her M.Phil degree in 2011, passed the NET on 30.12.2012 and
completed her M.Phil degree on 06.08.2014, the Petitioner duly
fulfilled all the requisite conditions for the grant of a NET certificate.
17. On the other hand, the present petition is vehemently opposed
by the Respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1
submits that the scheme of the NET and the minimum eligibility
conditions for the examination were duly notified by the Respondent
No. 1 on its website and as per Clause 3(vi) of the Eligibility
Notification, it was incumbent upon the candidates with foreign post-
graduate degrees to ascertain the equivalence of their respective
degrees with a master's degree of a recognized Indian university, as
per the rules and regulations of the Respondent No. 2. He also places
reliance on Clause 12 of the Eligibility Notification, according to
which it was incumbent upon the candidates to check their eligibility
for the examination before filling and submitting the online
application for the NET and wherein it was clearly stipulated that a
candidate's candidature was only provisional, and that the mere
issuance of an admission card at the time of online registration or that
the candidate was allowed to appear in the exam, would not ipso facto
imply that the Respondent No. 1 had accepted his/her candidature.
18. Mr. Agarwal further submits that as per Clause 4 of the
Respondent No. 1's notification dated 25.03.2013, whereby the results
of the NET examination held on 30.12.2012 were declared, the
declaration of the examination result of a candidate did not preclude a
candidate's subsequent disqualification if he/she was found to be
ineligible for the NET examination. Mr. Agarwal, thus, contends that
the Petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for the NET, since
the Subject Degree was not equivalent to a master's degree from a
recognized Indian university as per the rules and regulations of the
Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the Respondent No. 1's
disqualification of the Petitioner's candidature cannot be faulted.
19. Mr. Agarwal further contends that the Petitioner had notice of
the terms and conditions of the examination before taking the same
and, therefore, she cannot be permitted to argue anything contrary to
the terms and conditions of the examination after having taken the
same with complete knowledge of the exam notification and its
eligibility criteria.
20. Mr. Agarwal also submits that the Petitioner's contention, that
she is eligible for the NET on the basis of her M.Phil, is wholly
misconceived, since, as per the gazette notification dated 05.07.2014
of the Respondent No. 1, a M.Phil degree is not a master's degree but
a pre-doctoral degree that requires a master's degree at the entry-level.
21. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having
considered their rival contentions, I find that the Petitioner has
basically raised two contentions. The Petitioner's first contention is
that, since she has obtained the Subject Degree from the University of
Leeds, which is admittedly a University duly accredited and
recognized by the Respondent No. 1, the Subject Degree cannot be
held as an invalid qualification for appearing in the NET merely
because the Respondent No. 2, which is a private society, has opined
that it is not equivalent to a corresponding degree from a recognized
Indian University.
22. The Petitioner's alternate plea is that, since she had obtained a
M.Phil degree from a recognized Indian University, i.e. Jawaharlal
Nehru University, she was qualified on the strength of that M.Phil
degree, which was a master's degree as per notification dated
01.12.1958 issued by the Respondent No. 1 under
Section 22(3) of the UGC Act and was treated as a pre-doctoral level
qualification as per the subsequent notification dated 05.07.2014, to
appear for the NET.
23. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
considered view that there is merit in the plea raised by the learned
counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that the Subject Degree could not be
treated as valid qualification for NET, until it was certified by the
Respondent No. 2 as equivalent to a corresponding degree from a
recognized Indian University. The Eligibility Notification having
specifically laid down this condition in Clause 3(vi), the Petitioner
cannot contend that the Subject Degree should be treated as valid by
ignoring the opinion of the Respondent No. 2, merely because it is a
private body. It is a well settled legal position that a condition in the
notification is binding on a candidate, who participates in an
examination process pursuant to the notification without any demur or
protect against the conditions in the notification.
24. In this regard, reference may be made to the observations of the
Kerala High Court in the case of University Grants Commission v.
Anand J Illickan [WA No. 847/2015], of the Patna High Court in
Manoj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. [CWJ No. 19107/2015] and
of this Court in the case of Stuti Saxena v. University Grants
Commission [W.P.(C) 6923/2009], on which reliance has been placed
by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, to contend that the
Petitioner was bound by the terms and conditions stipulated in the
Eligibility Notification, including Clause 3(vi), especially when the
Petitioner applied for the NET only pursuant to the said notification.
The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Patna High Court
in Manoj Kumar (supra), wherein the Court agreed with the view
taken by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Anand J
Illickan (supra), are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"16. The Division Bench answered the issue, so
framed, in paragraph 45, holding that Association of
Indian Universities is a body, which is entitled to
declare equivalence for appearing in National
Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as „N.E.T.‟),
which is contemplated in the notification issued by the
U.G.C.. Such authority to grant equivalence by the
A.I.U. is statutorily recognized by the UGC
Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in
Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010.
The Division Bench took note of the stand of the
A.I.C.T.E. that A.I.C.T.E. accepts the opinion of A.I.U.
regarding diploma and degree and, therefore, there
was no need to examine the entitlement of A.I.C.T.E. to
grant equivalence of post-graduate diploma.
xxx
21. The Regulation, as quoted above, and the
requirement in the notification for holding U.G.C.-
N.E.T., June, 2013, makes it clear that the U.G.C.
desired and notified that prospecting candidate must
ascertain equivalence of their courses with the Masters
Degree of recognized Universities from A.I.U. In any
event, that was the condition notified in the notification
of U.G.C.-N.E.T., June, 2013. In my view, the
petitioner cannot question the eligibility conditions
prescribed in the notification after having participated
for the test. In my view, he is estopped from raising any
plea against requirement of sub-Clause (vi) of Clause
3 of notification for U.G.C.-N.E.T., June, 2013. I am
further of the view that no distinction can be made, for
the purpose of determining equivalence of P.G.
Diploma qualification with P.G. Degree qualification,
on the basis of Institution being own-managed and
maintained by the State Government/Union
Government or otherwise. The Regulations, governing
the field, do not carve out any exception or create such
distinction. Submission made on behalf of the
petitioner, in this regard, is not tenable.
22. I am in agreement with the view taken by a
Division Bench of Kerala High Court in case of Anand
J. Illickan (supra), wherein, the status and role of the
A.I.U., in the matter of its authority to declare
equivalence of PostGraduate Diploma with Post-
Graduate Degree, has been elaborately dealt. I have
no hesitation in recording my conclusion that
requirement of declaration by A.I.U., for the purpose of
equivalence of P.G. Diploma qualification with P.G.
Degree, is statutory in character, since the said
requirement has been incorporated in the statutory
Regulation framed in exercise of power under Section
26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
Consequently, the P.G. Diploma (P.M.I.R.)
qualification of the petitioner cannot be held to be
equivalent to P.G. Degree."
In the case of Stuti Saxena (supra), this Court held as follows:-
"6. The petitioner claims to have done her graduation
from Miranda House College of the University of
Delhi; the petitioner claims to have thereafter done the
Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management
(PGDBM) course from the respondent No.5-Jaipuria
Institute of Management, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; the
petitioner thereafter appeared in the National
Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC held on
17th December, 2006; only Post Graduates or holders
of Diplomas equivalent to Post Graduation are eligible
to appear in the said test; the petitioner appeared in
the said test on the premise that the PGDBM Diploma
of the respondent No.5-Jaipuria Institute of
Management was equivalent to Post Graduation;
UGC, however, referred the said question to the
respondent No.3-Association of Indian Universities
who did not find the PGDBM Diploma obtained by the
petitioner from the respondent No.5- Jaipuria Institute
of Management to be equivalent to Post Graduation.
Accordingly, the petitioner was disqualified from the
NET otherwise cleared by her. Aggrieved therefrom,
the present petition has been filed for issuing
mandamus to UGC and Association of Indian
Universities to recognize the PGDBM Diploma of
respondent No.5- Jaipuria Institute of Management as
equivalent to Post Graduation and for the relief of
declaration of the petitioner as qualified in NET.
xxx
10. The counsel for the UGC and AICTE has otherwise
contended that the Association of Indian Universities
though a Society but being controlled by the
Government is fully equipped to go into the question of
equivalence; that without the respondent No.5-
Jaipuria Institute of Management evidencing any
interest even to have its PGDBM course recognized as
equivalent to Post-Graduation or MBA, no enquiry in
that regard can be conducted. It is further informed
that the said enquiry entails detailed investigation into
the course content and for which the assistance of the
Institute is necessary.
xxx
12. The petitioner cannot be permitted to fight a proxy
battle for Jaipuria Institute of Management. In a
petition filed by the petitioner, this Court cannot direct
the UGC or Association of Indian Universities to,
without participation of the respondent No.5-Jaipuria
Institute of Management enquire into equivalence of
the said course of the respondent No.5-Jaipuria
Institute of Management."
25. Thus the Petitioner's first contention, that the Subject Degree
should be considered as a valid qualification for NET, cannot be
sustained. At this stage, I may examine the alternative plea raised on
behalf of the Petitioner that she is eligible for appearing in the NET on
the basis of her M.Phil degree obtained from Jawaharlal Nehru
University on 06.08.2014.
26. For deciding whether the Petitioner's M.Phil degree made her
eligible for the NET, it would be appropriate to refer to both the
notifications dated 01.12.1958 and 04.07.2014, the relevant portions
whereof read as under:-
Notification dated 01.12.1958:-
Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctorate Degree
1 to 7 xxx xxx xxx
8. Bachelor of Law Master of Doctor of Hygiene
or Laws (LL.B.) Philosophy (M.Phil) (D.HV.)
Notification dated 04.07.2014
Universal/Common to all Disciplines
Specified Degree Level Minimum Entry
Abbreviated Expanded Duration Qualificatio
(years) -n
1. D.Litt Doctor of Post ...... Ph.D.
Literature Doctoral
2. D.Sc Doctor of Post ...... Ph.D.
Science Doctoral
3. L.L.D. Doctor of Post 2 Ph.D.
Laws Doctoral
4. Ph.D./D.Phil Master of 2 MASTER'
Philosophy Doctoral S
5. M.Phil Master of Pre 1-1/2 MASTER'
Philosophy Doctoral S
27. On a combined reading of the aforesaid notifications, there is no
doubt about the fact that, while the M.Phil degree was considered as a
master's degree as per notification dated 01.12.1958, as per
notification dated 05.07.2014 it is now considered as a pre-doctoral
level degree, for which the minimum qualification is a Master's
degree. Thus, under the subsequent notification dated 05.07.2014, a
candidate must have a master's degree to acquire a M.Phil degree.
Since a master's degree is an essential qualification to obtain a M.Phil
degree, it is obvious that a M.Phil degree is a higher qualification than
a master's degree. Therefore, the Petitioner's M.Phil degree from
Jawaharlal Nehru University, which is admittedly a duly recognized
Indian university, is a higher qualification than a master's degree and
cannot be ignored. If a master's degree is the minimum eligibility
qualification for the NET, then a candidate with a higher qualification
degree would also be eligible for the NET. Therefore, in my
considered opinion, the Petitioner's M.Phil degree, which is a higher
qualification than a master's degree, made her eligible for the NET.
28. In my considered opinion, once Jawaharlal Nehru University
had accepted the Subject Degree as valid for granting admission to the
Petitioner in its M.Phil program, it was not open for Respondent No. 1
to once again get into the question of equivalence of the Subject
Degree by ignoring the Petitioner's M.Phil degree. At this stage, it
may also be relevant to refer to Respondent No. 2's letter dated
01.08.2011 to the Petitioner, informing her that at the time of seeking
admission in M.Phil programs, it had no objection if her case of higher
studies was decided by the admission-giving University as per their
own rules and regulations. The relevant extract of the aforesaid letter
dated 01.08.2011 reads as under:-
"Keeping in mind the above policy, AIU do not issues Equivalence
Certificates in such cases as they are deficient in terms of duration.
However, your case of higher studies will be decided by the
Admission giving University as per their existing Rules and
Regulations."
29. Reference may also be made to paragraph 8 of the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Isllam (supra):-
"8. In the present case, the High Court has merely relied upon a
book published as equivalence of foreign degrees by the
Association of Indian Universities and places its interpretation
that the B.A.(Hons) degree possessed by the appellant is not
equivalent to Masters degree of the Aligarh University and,
therefore, the appellant lacks essential qualification for
appointment as the Lecturer. The contents of the publication,
apart from the Book itself, cannot be ascribed with any official
sanctity of binding force or authority. The glaring facts arising in
this case have not been taken note of by the High Court. The
appellant had already obtained M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees from
the respondent University. At the time of his admission to M.Phil.
leading to Ph.D. course in the Department of Philosophy, the
question of equivalence in qualification was examined in detail
and the Academic Council approved his admission to M.Phil. or
Ph.D. course. In the event his qualification of B.A.(Hons) degree
from the Council of National Academic Awards is not equivalent
to Masters degree, he could not have been admitted to M.Phil.
leading to Ph.D. course. But to say that such acceptance of such
equivalence is only for the purpose of admission to M.Phil.
leading to Ph.D. course and not for other purposes will lead to
anomalous results. Equivalence of qualification has to be
determined before a person is allowed to undergo a course. When
the appellant as a result of such admission obtained such high
qualifications as M.Phil./Ph.D., it is difficult to imagine that the
equivalence of qualification obtained by him earlier was not
considered by the University. After having obtained such degrees
to nullify the equivalence declared by the Academic Council and
the Vice Chancellor will be to put the clock back causing grave
injustice to the appellant. Had he been denied admission on the
ground that his qualification is not equivalent to the Masters
degree, he might have obtained an equivalent qualification or
pursued his studies else where. That opportunity having been
deprived to him and his admission to such courses having been
ratified based on the recommendations of the equivalence
committee, it cannot be nullified in the manner it has been done."
30. Having arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner's M.Phil
degree made her eligible for the NET, the only other contention raised
by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, that the Petitioner's
M.Phil degree could not be considered since it had been obtained only
much after the closing date of 22.11.2012 for submitting applications
to UGC-NET (December 2012), i.e. on 06.08.2014, needs to be
considered. Clause 3(iv) of the Eligibility Notification specifically
includes not only candidates who have appeared or whose exams have
been delayed but also those who will be appearing at the qualifying
master's (final year) examination with the only rider that such
candidates must complete their degrees within 2 years from the date of
the NET result with the prescribed percentage of marks. The
Petitioner was admittedly a M.Phil student when she applied for the
NET, the result whereof was declared on 25.03.2013, and had
admittedly obtained a valid M.Phil degree on 06.08.2014, i.e. within
the two-year period prescribed under Clause 3(iv). There is, thus, no
reason as to why the Petitioner's M.Phil degree should be ignored,
when she had obtained the same within the time provided for in the
Eligibility Notification itself.
31. In my considered view the Petitioner, who has been described
as a meritorious student both by Jawaharlal Nehru University and the
University of Leeds and has already obtained a M.Phil degree, is being
arbitrarily denied the fruits of the NET, which she has duly qualified.
32. It may also be noted that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not
taken any independent stand in response to the petition and have
merely stated that it is for the Respondent No. 1 to determine the
Petitioner's eligibility for the NET.
33. The writ petition is liable to succeed and the Impugned Letter is
quashed. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to forthwith issue the NET
certificate to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 is directed to
process the Petitioner's pending application for lectureship by
considering her NET result.
34. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs. The pending application stands disposed of.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2018
sr/ss
