Supreme Court of India
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR.versusNEHA ANIL BOBDE (GADEKAR)
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 641
- Decided
- 19 September 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
The UGC, under Sections 12 and 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, lawfully prescribed the final qualifying criteria for NET 2012, and its actions were not arbitrary, illegal, nor violative of Article 14.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered whether the University Grants Commission (UGC) could prescribe aggregate qualifying percentages for the 2012 National Eligibility Test (NET) after candidates satisfied the paper‑wise minimum marks. The petitioners (UGC) contended that such criteria were within its statutory authority under the UGC Act, while the respondents argued that the change was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14. The Court held that Sections 12 and 26 of the UGC Act empower the Commission to define qualifications and that the qualifying criteria were already contemplated in the NET notification, thus not a prohibited rule change. It further emphasized that academic matters lie within the domain of expert bodies unless there is a clear statutory violation, and that the criteria bore a rational nexus to maintaining higher‑education standards. Accordingly, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the UGC has the statutory power to fix final qualifying criteria (aggregate percentages) for NET before declaration of results
- Whether the imposition of such qualifying criteria is arbitrary, illegal or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
- Whether the UGC was required to notify the aggregate qualifying criteria at the time of conducting the NET examination
- Whether courts may intervene in academic matters concerning the setting of qualifying standards
Legislation cited
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 12, s. 26
Subjects
University Grants CommissionNational Eligibility TestArticle 14qualifying criteriahigher education standardsacademic autonomycourt interventionUGC ActNETaggregate percentageexpert committee
Judgment
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 521
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR. A
V.
NEHA ANIL BOBDE (GADEKAR)
(Civil Appeal No. 8355 of 2013 etc.)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013.
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]
University Grants Commission Act, 1956:
ss.12 and 26 - National Eligibility Test 2012 conducted c
by UGC - Challenges on the ground that changes of
qualifying criteria reflected in final declaration of final results
was arbitrary, illegal, without authority and violative of Arl. 14
of the Constitution - Held: All the steps taken by UGC were
strictly in accordance with clause 7 of the Notification for NET 0
Examination, 2012 - Prescribing the qualifying criteria as per
clause 7 does not amount to a change in the rule as it was
already pre-meditated in the notification - It cannot be said
that the UGC has acted arbitrarily or whimsically against the
candidates - To clear the NET Examination, means clearing E
the final results, not merely passing in individual papers,
which is only the initial step - Candidate should satisfy the
final qualifying criteria laid down by UGC before declaration
of results - It is open to UGC to lay down any "qualifying
criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be
achieved, i.e. for maintenance of standards of teaching, F
examination and research - UGC has only implemented the
opinion of Experls by laying down the qualifying criteria, which
cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or
violative of Arl. 14 of the Constitution of India - University
Grants Commission Regulations, 2010. G
Universities:
Academic matters - Held: In academic matters, unless
521 H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, Regulations
or Notification issued, courts shall keep their hands off since
those issues fall within domain of the experts.
Pursuant to the Notification issued by the University
B Grants Commission (UGC) on 06.02.2012 for
determination of the eligibility for the award of JRF and
the eligibility for lectureship in Universities and Colleges,
National Eligibility Test (NET) was conducted on
24.6.2012. On 17 .9.2012, the Moderation Committee
constituted by the UGC recommended that qualifying
C criteria for eligibility for lecturership for General, OBC
(Non-Creamy Layer) and SC/ST/PWD candidates would
be an aggregate percentage of 65%, 60% and 55%
respectively in addition to the paper-wise minimum
percentage presented in clause 7 of the UGC NET
D Notification for June 2012. Accordingly, the result was
declared on 18.9. 2012. Subsequently, on some
representations and in view of the decision of the Expert
Committee, UGC prepared and declared supplementary
result on 12.11.2012 qualifying 15, 178 additional
E candidates. The candidates who had obtained the
minimum marks in Paper I, Paper II and Paper Ill,
approached the High Court seeking a declaration that the
change of qualifying criteria reflected in the final
declaration of results was arbitrary, illegal and violative
F of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court
allowed the writ petition and directed the UGC to declare
the results with reference to the minimum marks
prescribed.
G In the instant appeals filed by UGC and others, the
question for consideration before the Court was: whether
the University Grants Commission had the power to fix
the final qualifying criteria, for those who have obtained
the minimum marks for all the papers, before the final
declaration of the results of the National Eligibility Test
H for the year 2012.
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 523
BOBDE (GADEKAR)
Allowing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1.1Section12 of the UGC Act, 1956 states that
it shall be the general duty of the UGC to take, in
consultation with the Universities or other bodies
concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the 8
promotion and co-ordination of University education.The
UGC as an expert body has been entrusted by UGC Act
the general duty to take such steps as it may think fit for
the determination and maintenance of standards of
teaching, examination and research in Universities. It is C
also duty bound to perform such functions as may be
prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by it for
advancing the cause of higher education in India. The
UGC has also got the power to define the qualification
that should ordinarily be required for any person to be
appointed to the teaching staff of the University and to D
regulate the maintenance of standards and coordination
of work and faculties in the Universities. The UGC, in
exercise of its powers conferred on it under the various
provisions is duty bound to conduct the NET for
conferring eligibility for lectureship and for awarding E
Junior Research Fellowship every year. [para 5,9 and 20]
[528-G-H; 531-F-G; 540-B-D]
University of Delhi v. Raj Singh 1994 (3) Suppl.
=
SCR 217 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 516; University Grants F
Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Others 1996
(6) Suppl. SCR 392 = (1996) 10 SCC 536, Annamalai
University represented by Registrar v. Secretary to
Government, Information and Tourism Department and
=
Others 2009 (3) SCR 355 (2009) 4 SCC 590 - relied on
G
1.2. The UGC, in exercise of its powers conferred
under clauses (e) and (g) of s.26(1) of the UGC Act, issued
the UGC (Minimum Qualification of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other
measures for Maintenance of ~tandards of Higher H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A Education) Regulations, 2010. Clause 3.3.1 of the
Regulation specifically states the NET shall remain the
minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and for
appointment of Assistant Professors in the Universities/
Colleges/Institutions. Clause 4.4.1 stipulates that before
B fulfilling the other prescribed qualifications, the
candidates must have cleared the NET conducted by the
UGC. Therefore, the power of the UGC to prescribe, as it
thinks fit the qualifying criteria for maintenance of
standards of teaching, examination etc., cannot be
C disputed. Para 7 of the Notification for holding the NET
on 24.6.2012 deals with the Scheme of the Act which
clearly indicates that the candidates are required to
obtain minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and
Paper Ill. It also clearly indicates that only such
candidates who obtain minimum required marks in each
0
paper will be considered for final preparation of results.
The final qualifying criteria for JRF and eligibility for
lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration
of results. [para 23] [542-D-H; 543-A]
E 1.3. Thus, the requirements to be followed before the
final declaration of the results are: (i) Candidates to
obtain minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and
Paper Ill; (ii) Candidates who have satisfied the said
criteria only would be subjected to a qualifying criteria
F before the final preparation of result; (Consideration
Zone); and (iii) UGC has to fix the final qualifying criteria
before the declaration of results. The candidates are
seeking final declaration of results the moment they have
obtained the minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper
G II and Paper 111, ignoring the other two steps and also
forgetting the fact that only those who obtain the
minimum required marks alone will fall in the consideration
zone. All these steps have been clearly stipulated in the
notification for NET Examination, 2012. [para 23-24] [543-
H A-E]
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 525
BOBDE (GADEKAR)
1.4. It is to be noted that 2,04, 150 candidates have A
obtained the minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper
II and Paper Ill. All those candidates were subjected to a
final qualifying criteria fixed by the Committee constituted
by the UGC, since they fell within the Consideration
Zone. Applying the final qualifying criteria, the Committee B
recommended: (i) that a total of 43,974 candidates may
be declared qualified for lectureship eligibility as per the
qualifying criteria;(ii) that the NET Bureau may finalize the
JRF awardees as per the criteria mentioned at (i) out of
those candidates who had opted for JRF and have c
qualified for lectureship eligibility. Based on the
recommendations of the Expert Committee, the final
results were announced and 43,974 candidates were
declared qualified for lectureship eligibility as per the
qualifying criteria. Some more relaxation was also 0
granted in favour of those who got the minimum
qualifying marks since those candidates figured amongst
the top 7% of all the candidates who appeared in NET,
which was in addition to the candidates declared as
qualified in the original result declared on 18.9.2012.
E
15, 178 candidates were benefitted by that relaxation.
Consequently, a total of 57,550 candidates were declared
passed in the NET Exam. 2012. [para 25-26) [543-D-E;
544-F-H; 545-A]
1.5. All the steps taken by the UGC were strictly in F
accordance with clause 7 of the Notification for the NET
Examination, 2012. Prescribing the qualifying criteria as
per clause 7 does not amount to a change in the rule as
it was already pre-meditated in the notification. It cannot
be said that the UGC has acted arbitrarily or whimsically G
against the candidates. The UGC in exercise of its
statutory powers and the laid down criteria in the
notification for NET June, 2012, constituted a Moderation
Committee consisting of experts for finalising the
qualifying criteria for lectureship eligibility and JRF. UGC
H
acted on the basis of the recommendations made by the
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A Expert Committee. [para 27) [545-B-D]
1.6. The candidates were not misled in any manner.
To clear the NET Examination, means clearing the final
results, not merely passing in Paper I, Paper II and Paper
Ill, which is only the initial step, not fin<ll; the candidate
8
should satisfy the final qualifying criteria laid down by the
UGC before declaration of the results. [para 28) [545-E-F]
1.7. In academic matters, unless there is a clear
violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations or the
C Notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off
since those issues fall within the domain of the experts.
[para 29) [545-F-G]
University of Mysore vs. C. D. Govinda Rao, 1964
D SCR 575 =AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim
University 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 689 = (2001) 8 SCC 546 and
Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University 2008
(11) SCR 992 = (2008) 9 sec 284 - relied on
1.8 UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with
E the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the
determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination and research in Universities. For attaining
the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any
"qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the
F object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of
standards of teaching, examination and research.
Candidates declared eligible for lecture.ship may be
considered for appointment as Assistant Pr9fessors in
Universities and colleges and the standard of such a
G teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance
of standards of education to be imparted to the students
of the universities and colleges. UGC has only
implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying down
the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as
H arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Art. 14 of
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 527
BOBDE (GADEKAR)
the Constitution of India. [para 29) [546-B-E] A
Case Law Reference:
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 217 relied on para 21
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 392 relied on para 22
B
2009 (3) SCR 355 relied on para 22
1964 SCR 575 relied on para 29
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 689 relied on para 29
c
2008 (11) SCR 992 relied on para 29
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8355 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.04.2013 of the High D
Court of Bombay at Nagpur in WP No. 4996 of 2012.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 8356 of 2013
Civil Appeal No. 8357 of 2013. E
Mohan Parasaran, S.G., Raju Ramachandran, Nagendra
Rai, V. Giri, Amitesh Kumar, Chandra Shekhar, Navin Prakash,
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ashwati Balraj, Vikramaditya,
Nirnimesh Dube, Varun Punia, Siddhart Mittal, S.K. Sabharwal, F
K.P. Rajagopal, A. Venayagam Balan, Arjun Garg, Nachiketa
Joshi, Chaitanya Joshi, Hanmat Patil, Shantanu Sagar,
Chandra Prakash, Deepak Prakash, Bineesh Karat, Vivek
Kumar Varma, Haritha V.A., Dr. Vinod Kr. Tewari, Anupam
Dwivedi, Pradeep Kr. Dwivedi, D.N. Dubey, R.K. Pandey, Atul G
Sharma, Aakarshan Sahay, Akhil Sachar, Shridhar V. Purohit,
Siddesh Kotwal, Usha Nandini, V, for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. We are, in these appeals, called upon to examine
whether the University Grants Commission (for short "the UGC")
has got the power to fix the final qualifying criteria, for those
who have obtained the minimum marks for all the papers,
B before the final declaration of the results of the National
Eligibility Test (for short "NET") for the year 2012.
3. We have, before us, a judgment of the Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur, which ruled that
C the UGC lacked the competence to fix the aggregate marks
as the final qualifying criteria, after the candidates obtained the
minimum marks, prescribed in the notification dated 6.12.2012
before the declaration of results of NET Examination, agreeing
with a similar view expressed by a learned single Judge of the
D Kerala High Court.
4. Let us, at the outset, examine the scope of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short "the UGC Act"), the
University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 etc., which
E is necessary for a proper appreciation of the various
contentions raised by the learned counsel on either side.
5. The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted by the Parliament
under the provisions of Entry 66 List I of the Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution, which entitles it to legislate in respect of "co-
F ordination and determination of standards in Institutions for
higher education or research and scientific and technical
education". For the said purpose, the Act authorized the Central
Government to establish a commission, by name, the University
Grants Commission. Chapter Ill of the Act deals with the powers
G and functions of the Commission. Section 12 states that it shall
be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation
with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps
as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of
University education and for the determination and maintenance
H of standards of teaching, examination and research in
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 529
BOBDE (GADEKAR) [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Universities, and for the purpose .of performing its functions A
under the Act, the Commission has been bestowed with certain
powers under the Act. Clause U) of Section 12 reads as under:
"12(j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed
or as may be deemed necessary by the 8
Commission for advancing the cause of higher
education in India or as may be incidental or
conducive to the discharge of the above functions."
6. Section 26(1) of the UGC Act confers powers on it to
make regulations consistent with the Act and the Rules. C
Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Section 26 are of some relevance
and are given below:
"26.(1) The Commission may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, make regulations consistent with o
this Act and the rules made thereunder-
)()()( )()()( )()()(
(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be
required of any person to be appointed to the E
teaching staff of the University, having regard to the
branch of education in which he is expected to give
instruction;
(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the
F
grant of any degree by any University;
(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the
co-ordinatibn of work or facilities in Universities.
)()()( )()()( xxx'' G
7. UGC, in exercise of its powers conferred under Clauses
(e) and (g} of Section 26(1) of the UGC Act and in supersession
of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications
required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9. S.C.R.
A Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it)
Regulations, 2000, issued the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
B Education)Regulations, 2010. Regulation 2 states. that the
minimum qualifications for appointment and other service
conditions of University and College teachers, Librarians and
Directors of Physical Education and Sports as a measure for
the maintenance of standards in higher education, shall be as
c provided in the Annexure to the above Regulations. Clause
3.3.1 of the Annexure reads as follows:
"3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum
eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment
of Assistant Professors in Universities /Colleges/
D Institutions.
Provided however, that candidates, who are or
have been awarded a Ph.D Degree in accordance
with the University Grants Commission (Minimum
E Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D
Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted
from the requirement of the minimum eligibility
condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and
appointment of Assistant Profession or equivalent
F positions in Universities/ Colleges/Institutions."
8. Clause 4.0.0 deals with Direct Recruitment. Clause 4.4.0
1ls with Assistant Professor and Clause 4.4.1 deals with
v Jus disciplines, like Art, Humanities etc and qualifications
prescribed for them read as follows:
G
"4.4.1 Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences,
Commerce, Education, Languages, Law,
Journalism and Mass Communication
i. Good academic record as defined by the
H
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 531
BOBDE (GADEKAR) [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an A
equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading
system is follows) at the Master's Degree level in
a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an
equivalent degree from an accredited foreign
university. B
ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the
candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility
Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar
test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.
c
iii. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- clauses
(i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1, candidates, who are,
or have been awarded a Ph.D Degree in
accordance with the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of D
Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 shall be
exempted from the requirement of the minimum
eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for
recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor
or equivalent positions in Universities/ Colleges/ E
Institutions
iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such
Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/
SLET/SET is not conducted."
F
9. UGC, in exercise of its powers conferred on it under the
various provisions mentioned hereinabove, is duty bound to
conduct the NET for conferring eligibility for lectureship and for
awarding Junior Research Fellowship (for short "JRF"). UGC
conducts such a test every year. G
10. UGC, in its 482nd meeting held on 22.12.2011,
decided as under:
"During the course of discussion, the Commission
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A also deliberated in detail the issues pertaining to objectivity
in marking of Paper-Ill, transparency, reducing the inter and
intra-examiner variability in marking of Paper-Ill, delays in
declaration of NET results, recommendations of the NET
Moderation Committees to switch over Paper-Ill from
B descriptive to objective type on the pattern of CSIR- NET
Examination wherein all the three papers are of objective
type.
Having regard to the above, the Commission
decided that Paper-Ill be converted into objective type
c from the ensuing examination scheduled in June 2012.
Further, the Commission also recommended that the
action may also be initiated for the development of
question banks."
D 11. Notification for the NET examination was accordingly
published on 06.02.2012 for determination of the eligibility of
Indian Nationals for the award of JRF and the eligibility for
lectureship in Indian Universities and Colleges.
E 12. UGC, under that Notification, announced that NET
would be held on 24th June, 2012 and the candidates were
directed to read the notification carefully before submission of
the application form. Clause 3 refers to the condition of eligibility
and Para 7 of the Notification deals with the Scheme and date
of test. Operative portion of Para 7 is given below for easy
F reference :-
"7. SCHEME AND DATE OF TEST:
(i) The UGC-NET will be conducted in objective mode from
June 2012 onwards. The Test will consist of three papers.
G
All the three papers will consist of only objective type
questions and will be held on 24th June, 2012 (SUNDAY)
in two separate sessions as under:
H
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 533
BOBDE (GADEKAR) [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Session Paper Marks Number of Duration A
Question
First I 100 60 out of which 50 1 % Hours
questions to be (09.30 A.M. to
attempted 10.45 A.M.) B
First II 100 50 questions are 1 % Hours
compulsory (10.45 to
12.00 Noon)
Second 111 150 75 questions all are 2 Y2 Hours c
compulsory (01.30P.M. to
04.00 P.M.)
Paper- I shall be of general nature, intended to assess the
teaching/research aptitude of the candidate. It will primarily
be designed to test reasoning ability, comprehension, D
divergent thinking and general awareness of the candidate.
Sixty (60) multiple choice questions of two marks each will
be given, out of which the candidate would be required to
answer any fifty (50). In the event of the candidate
attempting more than fifty questions, the first fifty questions E
attempted by the candidate would be evaluated.
Paper-II shall consist of 50 objective type compulsory
questions based on the subject selected by the candidate.
Each question will carry 2 marks.
Paper-Ill shall consist of 75 objective type compulsory F
questions from the subject selected by the candidate.
,., Each
question will carry 2 marks.
The candidate will have to mark the responses for
questions of Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-Ill on the Optical
Mark Reader (OMR) sheet provided along with the Test G
Booklet. The detailed instructions for filling up the OMR
Sheet will be sent to the candidate along with the Admit
Card.
The candidates are required to obtain minimum marks
separately in Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-Ill as given below: H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R..
A CATEGORY Minimum Marks (%) to be obtained
PAPER-I PAPER-II PAPER-Ill
GENERAL 40 (40%) 40 (40%) 75 (50%)
OBC (Non-creamy 35 (35%) 35 (35%) 67.5 (45%)
B layer rounded off to 68
PHNH/SC/ST 35 (35%) 35 (35%) 60 (40%)
uni y such cane 1dates who obtain the minimum required
marks in each Paper, separately, as mentioned above, will
c be considered for final preparation of result. However, the
final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship
(JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship shall be decided by
UGC before declaration of result."
13. UGC, accordingly, conducted the examination on 24th
D June, 2012. On 17th September, 2012, the Moderation
Committee constituted by the UGC consisting of the Chairman
and Secretary, UGC, former Director, NCERT, former Member
of the UGC, Vice-Chancellor, Central University of Gujarat,
Vice-Chancellor, Tripura University, Vice-Chancellor, Delhi
E University, Head, Dept. of Bio-Technology, University of Madras,
Vice-Chancellor, Doon University and few other experts, met
for finalising the "Qualifying Criteria" for Lectureship eligibility
and took the following decision :-
"II. CONSIDERATION ZONE FOR UGC-NET
F The candidates are required to obtain minimum marks
separately in Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-Ill as given below:
Table (i)
Category Minimum marks(%) to be obtained
G Paper-I Paper-II Paper-Ill
General 40(40%) 40(40%) 75 (50%)
OBC 35(35%) 35(35%) 67.5(45%)
rounded off to 68
H SC/ST/PWD 35(35%) 35(35%) 60(40%)
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 535
BOBDE (GADEKAR) (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required A
marks in each Paper, separately, as mentioned above,
were to be considered for final preparation of result. As
many as 2.04, 150 candidates fell in the above-mentioned
consideration zone.
B
Ill. QUALIFYING CRETERIA FOR LECTURESHIP
ELIGIBILITY
Taking cognizance of the consideration zone described
above, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research
Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship are to be C
determined by the Moderation Committee for declaration
of result.
In addition to the consideration zone described above, the
Committee decided to establish another category-wise 0
benchmark for Lectureship Eligibility, i.e. aggregate
percentage of all the three papers. Thus, the proposed
qualifying criteria for Lectureship Eligibility are as follows:
Table (ii)
E
Category Minimum Qualifying Percentage
Paper-I Paper-II Paper-Ill Aggregate
.
General 40 % 40 % 50 % 65 %
F
OBC 35 % 35 % 45% 60 %
SC/ST/PWD 35 % 35 % 40% 55 %
As per the above criteria, it was found by the Committee G
that a total of 43974 candidates qualify for lectureship
eligibility."
14. The Committee recommended that the General, OBC
(Non-Creamy Layer) and SC/ST/PWD candidates would be H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A required to obtain an aggregate percentage of 65%, 60% and
55% respectively in addition to the paper-wise minimum
percentage presented in clause 7 of the UGC NET Notification
for June 2012, as qualifying criteria. Based on the
recommendations of the Moderation Committee, result was
B declared on 18th September, 2012 and the category-wise
qualifying criteria to the UGC-NET examination held on 24th
June, 2012 was as under:
"Category-Wise Qualifying Criteria for Lectureship
Eligibility in UGC-NET held on 24th June, 2012:
c
Category Minimum Qualifying Percentage
Paper-I Paper-II Paper-Ill Aggregate
D General 40 % 40 % 50 % 65 %
OBC (Non 35 % 35 % 45 % 60 %
Creamy
Layer)
SC/ST/PWD 35 % 35 % 40 % 55 %
E
15. UGC later received some representations regarding
the criteria adopted for the NET-JUNE 2012 and keeping in
view the same, the Commission met on 20.10.2012 and set
up a five member Expert Committee from amongst the
F Commission Members for examining the representations/
grievances related to NET-JUNE 2012 and re-visit the results,
if found necessary. The Committee, after examining the
representations, recommended as under:-
G
"(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
H
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 537
BOBDE (GADEKAR) [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
were taken into account while preparing the list of selected A
caindidates for the purposes of JRF. At the same time, the
Committee felt that in future the announcement should
m;ake 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 B
each subject by taking into account the performance of all
the candidates.
(ii}< Grievances related to the uniform and high cut-off
fo1r UGC-NET across various disciplines: The C
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
ttie subjects, from above 30% to as low as less than 1% D
r,n 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 E
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:
F
(a) Those candidates who had made it to the
consideration zone, i.e. those who received a
minimum of 40%, 40% & 50% marks in Paper-I,
Paper-II and Paper-Ill respectively for General
Category; 35%, 35% & 45% marks in Paper-I, G
Paper-II and Paper-Ill respectively for OBC (Non-
Creamy Layer) Category and 35%, 35% & 40%
marks in Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-Ill respectively
for SC/ST/PWD Category and those who secured
aggregate percentage (obtained by combining
H
marks of Paper-I, II & Ill) of 65% for General
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A Category, 60% for OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) and
55% for SC/ST/PWD category candidates (This is
the same criterion as described by the earlier
Moderation Committee).
OR
B
(b) Those candidates who figure among top 7% of all
the candidates who appeared in NET; this shall be
calculated separately for each discipline and for
each category (SC/ST/OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)/
C PWD. Accordingly a cut-off will be determined for
each subject and each category for this purpose.
In case of tie (when several students have same
identical aggregate marks) all the candidates
appearing at the qualifying marks shall be included.
D Candidates who do not secure minimum required
score in each paper and are therefore not in the
consideration zone, will not be included in this list
even if they fall among the top 7% within their
subject and category.
E
)()()( )()()( )()()(
)()()( )()()( XXX:.'
16. The Committee revisited the results and decided to
F qualify a few additional candidates for JRF and eligibility for
lectureship both and eligibility for lectureship only. Accordingly,
UGC prepared supplementary result qualifying 15, 178
additional candidates which was declared on 12.11.2012. This
was in addition to the candidates declared as qualified in the
G original result of June 2012 UGC-NET declared on 18.9.2012.
. 17. Altogether 5, 71,630 candidates appeared in the UGC-
NET Examination, 2012, out of which 2,04,150 candidates got
the minimum marks prescribed separately in Paper I, Paper II
and Paper Ill and fell in th'e consideration zone. From that,
H
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 539
BOBDE (GADEKAR) [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
57,550 candidates were declared passed in the NET A
Examination for the year 2012, applying the qualifying criteria
laid down by the Expert Committee of the UGC.
18. We notice, the candidates who have obtained the
minimum marks in Paper I, Paper II and Paper Ill approached B
the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench seeking a
declaration that the change of qualifying criteria reflected in the
final declaration of results is arbitrary, illegal and without
authority of law and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. Further, it was also stated that the declaration of NET C
alone being the minimum eligibility standard, UGC has
attempted to fix the Aggregate Criteria as an additional
qualifying criteria, which action of the UGC goes beyond the
scope of the notification. Further, if was also pointed outthat if
at all the UGC has got the power to fix any additional qualifying
criteria prior to the declaration of results, the same should have D
been notified at the time of taking the NET examination. Further,
it was also the case of the writ petitioners that the object of
prescribing NET is only to.have uniform standards of lecturers
. to be appointed across the country and to remove the disparity
in evaluation by awarding the degrees by various Universities E
and that the UGC is not a recruiting authority. UGC, according
to the candidates, is only expected to prescribe uniform
standards and not to superimpose any further qualifying criteria
before the declaration of the results. The High Court found
favour with the contentions raised by the writ petitioners and F
allowed the writ petition and directed the UGC to declare the
results with reference to the minimum marks prescribed for
passing those papers. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals
have been preferred by the UGC.
G
19. We have heard counsel on the either side at length.
Let us, at the outset, point out that the power of the UGC to set
the standard of qualifying criteria, as such, is not disputed but,
it was pointed out, such qualifying criteria ought to have been
notified and made known to the candidates before taking the H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A examination on 24th June, 2012. After prescribing that the
candidates were required to obtain minimum marks separately
in Paper I, Paper II and Paper Ill, there is no justification in
superimposing an additional qualifying criteria before the
declaration of the results.
B
20. We have elaborately referred to various statutory
provisions which would clearly indicate that the UGC as an
expert body has been entrusted by UGC Act the general duty
to take such steps as it may think fit for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and
C research in Universities. It is also duty bound to perform such
functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed
necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of
higher education in India. The UGC has also got the power to
define the qualification that should ordinarily be required for any
D person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University
and to regulate the maintenance of standards and coordination
of work and faculties in the Universities.
21. This Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh 1994
E Supp. (3) SCC 516 dealt with the powers of UGC elaborately
and held as follows:
"20. The ambit of Entry 66 has already been the subject
of the decisions of this Court in the cases of the Gujarat
University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudho/kar 1963 Supp
F 1 SCR 112 and the Osmania University Teachers'
Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987) 4 SCC
671. The UGC Act is enacted under the provisions of Entry
66 to carry out the objective thereof. Its short title, in fact,
reproduces the words of Entry 66. The principal function
G of the UGC is set out in the opening words of Section 12,
thus:
"It shall be the general duty of the Commission to
take ... all such steps as it may think fit for the
H promotion and coordination of University education
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 541
BOBDE (GADEKAR) (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J'.]
and for the determination and maintenance of A
standards of teaching, examination and research in
Universities .... "
It is very important to note that a duty is cast upon the
Commission to take "all such steps as it may think fit . . . 8
for the determination and maintenance of standards of
teaching". These are very wide-ranging powers. Such
powers, in our view, would comprehend the power to
require those who poss~ss the educational qualifications
required for holding the post of lecturer in Universities and C
colleges to appear for a written test, the passing of which
would establish that they possess the minimal proficiency
for holding such post. The need for such test is
demonstrated by the reports of the commissions and
committees of educationists referred to above which take
note of the disparities in the standards of education in the D
various Universities in the country. It is patent that the
holder of a postgraduate degree from one University is not
necessarily of the same standard as the holder of the same
postgraduate degree from another University. That is the
rationale of the test prescribed by the said Regulations. It E
falls squarely within the scope of Entry 66 and the UGC
Act inasmuch as it is intended to co-ordinate standards
and the UGC is armed with the power to take all such steps
as it may think fit in this behalf. For performing its general
duty and its other functions under the UGC Act, the UGC F
is invested with the powers specified in the various
clauses of Section 12. These include the power to
recommend to a University the measures necessary for the
improvement of University education and to advise in
respect of the action to be taken for the purpose of G
implementing such recommendation [clause (cf)}. The
UGC is also invested with the power to perform such other
functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed
necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to
the discharge of such functipns [clause (/)] ............ "
22. The judgment referred to above was later followed in
University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and
B Others (1996) 10 SCC 536, wherein this Court dealt with the
recommendation of the Malhotra Committee and the powers
of UGC. Reference may also be made to another judgment of
this Court in Annama/ai University represented by Registrar
v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism
Department and Others (2009) 4 SCC 590, wherein this Court
C reiterated that the UCG Act was enacted for effectuating co-
ordination and determination of standards in universities and
colleges.
23. UGC, in exercise of its powers conferred under clauses
D (e) and (g) of Section 26(1) of the UGC Act, issued the UGC
(Minimum Qualification of Teachers and other Academic Staff
in Universities and Colleges and other measures for
Maintenance of Standards of Higher Education) Regulations,
2010. Clause 3.3.1 of the Regulation specifically states the NET
E shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment
and for appointment of Assistant Professors in the Universities/
Colleges/Institutions. Clause 4.4.1 stipulates that before fulfilling
the other prescribed qualifications, the candidates must have
cleared the National Eligibility Test conducted by the UGC.
F Therefore, the power of the UGC to prescribe, as it thinks fit
the qualifying criteria for maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination etc. cannot be disputed. It is in exercise of the
above statutory powers, the UGC has issued the notification
for holding the NET on 24th June, 2012. Para 7 of the
G Notification deals with the Scheme of the Act which clearly
indicates that the candidates are required to obtain minimum
marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and Paper Ill. It also clearly
indicates that only such candidates who obtain minimum
required marks in each paper will be considered for final
preparation of results. The final qualifying criteria for JRF
H
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 543
BOBDE (GADEKAR) [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
and eligibility for lectureship shall be decided by UGC before A
declaration of result. Above clause deals with the following
requirements to be followed before the final declaration of the
results:-
(i) Candidates to obtain minimum marks separately 8
in Paper I, Paper II and Paper Ill;
(ii) Candidates who have satisfied the above criteria
only would be subjected to a qualifying criteriGI
before the final preparation of result; (Consideration
Zone) , C
(iii) UGC has to fix the final qualifying criteria before the
declaration of results.
24. Candidates are seeking final declaration of results the
0
moment they have obtained the minimum marks separately in
Paper I, Paper II and Paper Ill, ignoring the other two steps,
referred to hereinbefore, and also forgetting the fact that only
those who obtain the minimum required marks alone will fall in
the consideration zone. All these steps, as we have referred
to above, have been clearly stipulated in the notification for NET E
Examination, 2012.
25. We find, 2,04, 150 candidates have obtained the
minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and Paper Ill.
All those candidates were subjected to a final qualifying criteria F
fixed by the Committee constituted by the UGC, since they fell
within the Consideration Zone. Applying the final qualifying
criteria, the Committee made the following recommendations:-
(i) The Committee recommended that a total of
43,974 candidates may be declared qualified for G
lectureship eligibility as per the qualifying criteria
given below :-
H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 9 S.C.R.
A Category Minimum Qualifying Percentage
Paper-I Paper-II Paper-Ill Aggregate
General 40 % 40 % 50 % 65 %
OBC (Non 35 % 35 % 45 % 60 %
B
Creamy
Layer)
SC/ST/PWD 35 % 35 % 40 % 55 %
(ii) The Committee recommended that the NET
c Bureau may finalize the JRF awardees as per the
criteria mentioned above out of those candidates
who had opted for JRF and have qualified for
lectureship eligibility.
D (iii) The Committee authorized the Chairman, University
Grants Commission to declare the result for
eligibility for lectureship and Junior Research
Fellowship as recommended by the Moderation
Committee.
E
While concluding the deliberations, the Committee
expressed the appreciation for the painstaking effort of the
NET Bureau in analyzing the results and presenting its
findings.
F 26. We notice, based on the recommendations of the
Expert Committee, the final results were declared and 43,974
candidates were declared qualified for lectureship eligibility as
per the qualifying criteria. As already indicated, some more
relaxation was also granted in favour of those persons who got
G the minimum qualifying marks since those candidates figured
amongst the top 7% of all the candidates who appeared in NET,
which was in addition to the candidates declared as qualified
in the original result declared on 18.9.2012. 15, 178 candidates
were benefitted by that relaxation. Consequently, as already
H
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 545
BOBDE (GADEKAR) [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
stated, a total of 57,550 candidates were declared passed in A
the NET Exam. 2012.
27. We are of the considered opinion that all the steps
taken by the UGC were strictly in accordance with clause 7 of
the Notification for the NET Examination, 2012. Prescribing the 8
qualifying criteria as per clause 7, in our view, does not amount
to a change in the rule of the game as it was already pre-
meditated in the notification. We are not inclined to say that the
UGC has acted arbitrarily or whimsically against the candidates.
The UGC in exercise of its statutory powers and the laid down
criteria in the notification for NET June, 2012, has constituted C
a Moderation Committee consisting of experts for finalising the
qualifying criteria for lectureship eligibility and JRF. UGC acted
on the basis of the recommendations made by the Expert
Committee. The recommendations made by them have already
been explained in the earlier part of the judgment. Reason for D
making such recommendations has also been highlighted in the
Report.
28. We are of the considered view that the candidates were
not misled in any manner. Much emphasis has been made on E
the words "clearing the National Eligibility Test". "Clearing"
means clearing the final results, not merely passing in Paper I,
Paper II and Paper Ill, which is only the initial step, not final. To
clear the NET Examination, as already indicated, the candidate
should satisfy the final qualifying criteria laid down by the UGC F
before declaration of the result:;.
29. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless
there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations
or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off
since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This G
Court in University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR
1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University
(2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary
Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view
that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise
and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic
experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than
the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been
entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the
B determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination and research in the University. For attaining the
said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any "qualifying
criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be
achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of teaching,
c examination and research. Candidates declared eligible for
lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant
Professors in Universities and colleges and the standard of
such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance
of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the
universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the
0
opinion of the Experts by laying down the qualifying criteria,
which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or
discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
E 30. The Appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment
of the High Court is set aside. The Applications for
lmpleadment and Intervention are dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
R.P. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "University Grants Commission"Sign in to search