Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rohitash And Ors vs State (Education Department)Anr on 4 December, 2013
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No.16215/2013 Mahendra Kumar Shandilya & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No.20666/2013 Vinod Kumar Maheshwari versus State of Rajasthan & anr 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No.20239/2013 Shelendra Kumar Jain & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 4.SB Civil Writ Petition No.19951/2013 Azhar Javed & ors versus RPSC 5.SB Civil Writ Petition No.19003/2013 Vikram Singh Hada & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 6.SB Civil Writ Petition No.19110/2013 Sudesh & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 7.SB Civil Writ Petition No.19044/2013 Ranjana Agarwal versus State of Rajasthan & anr 8.SB Civil Writ Petition No.18269/2013 Devendra Singh Solanki & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 9.SB Civil Writ Petition No.18908/2013 Rohitash & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 10.SB Civil Writ Petition No.17683/2013 Sanjay Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr 11.SB Civil Writ Petition No.15684/2013 Kumari Pragati Chaturvedi versus State of Rajasthan & anr 12.SB Civil Writ Petition No.19465/2013 Sapana Parashar versus State of Rajasthan & anr 13.SB Civil Writ Petition No.18588/2013 Smt Poonam Gidwani & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 14.SB Civil Writ Petition No.17362/2013 Indra Chand Kumawat versus RPSC & ors 15.SB Civil Writ Petition No.16770/2013 Poonam & anr versus RPSC 16.SB Civil Writ Petition No.18253/2013 Babita Sharma & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 17.SB Civil Writ Petition No.17938/2013 Bhupendra Sanwaria & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 4.12.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr CP Sharma Mr Vikas Kabra Mr Tanveer Ahmed Mr RDS Naruka Mr HR Kumawat Mr Yunus Kumar Mr Mukesh Kumar Saini - for petitioner(s) Mr Shantanu Kumawat Dr Soniya Saini Mr VK Sharma Mr SS Shekhawat for Mr MS Raghav for respondents BY THE COURT:
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') issued Notification dated 30.5.2012 for Rajasthan State Eligibility Test for Lectureship, 2012 (for short 'SET'). The petitioners applied for the test and remained successful by obtaining minimum marks as prescribed for different categories and different papers. They were not granted certificate of eligibility as the Commission prescribed separate cut off marks for it.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that while the notification was issued by the Commission for SET, minimum marks for different papers and for different categories were prescribed. For general category, one was required to obtain minimum 40% marks in Paper-I and Paper-II and 50% marks for Paper-III, whereas, for OBC/ SBC/ SC/ ST/ PH and VH, minimum marks were 35% for Paper I and II and for Paper III, 45% for OBC and SBC and 40% marks for SC/ST/PH and VH categories. The respondents, after holding the test, issued marks sheet where all the petitioners obtained more marks than the minimum. They were, however, shocked to notice subject-wise cut off marks for declaring a candidate to have passed the test. The action of the respondents to keep separate cut off marks for final result is thus challenged.
It is alleged that without providing criteria for cut off marks, while issuing advertisement/ notification or under the rules, the RPSC should not be allowed to declare petitioners to be unsuccessful in the test. The respondents should have provided criteria for final qualifying marks while issuing the advertisement and not subsequent to declaration of the result. Hence, action of the respondents may be declared to be arbitrary and in violatio of the conditions of advertisement.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that while issuing advertisement, para 8 was inserted to notify scheme of the test. As per the scheme, one was required to obtain minimum marks in each paper and, thereupon, such candidates were to be considered for final preparation of the result. The aforesaid was mentioned in the advertisement thus there exist no arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. The minimum passing marks as provided in para 8 of the advertisement was for consideration of candidates for final result. In view of above, respondents provided cut off marks for different categories and subjects which cannot be said to be in violation of the terms of the advertisement.
It is further stated that similar question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to the National Eligibility Test (NET). It is also one of the required qualifications to get appointment to the post of Lecturer as per the University Grants Commission (for short 'the UGC') under its Regulations of 2000. The Hon'ble Apex Court decided two issues in the case of University Grants Commission & anr versus Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), Civil Appeal No.8355/2013, decided on 19.9.2013 along with other connected appeals. Since the controversy has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all these writ petitions may be governed by the judgment aforesaid.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case besides the judgment cited at the Bar.
The Commission issued an advertisement for the Rajasthan State Eligibility Test for Lectureship. Petitioners are those who appeared in the test and obtained minimum qualifying marks as provided in the advertisement. Since para 8 of the advertisement has been referred by both the parties, it is quoted hereunder for ready reference -
08- SCHEME OF TEST:
(1) The examination will consist of three papers. All the three papers will consist of only Objective Type questions as under:-
Session Paper Marks No. of Questions Duration First I 100 60 questions out of which 50 1 Hours questions are to be attempted (09:30 AM to 10:45 AM) Second III 150 75 questions all of which are 2 Hours compulsory (01:30 PM to 04:00 PM) 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, divergent thinking and general awareness of the candidate.
Paper- II & III shall consist Objective type questions based on the subject selected by the candidate.
(2) The candidates are required to obtain minimum marks separately in Paper-I, Paper -II and Paper-III as given blow :
CATEGORY MINIMUM MARKS (%) TO BE OBTAINED PAPER I PAPER - II PAPER - III GENERAL 40 (40%) 40 (40%) 75 (50%) OBC/SBC 35 (35%) 35 (35%) 67.5 (45%) ROUNDED OFF TO 68 SC/ST/ PH/VH 35 (35%) 35 (35%) 60 (40%) Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required marks in each Paper, separately, as mentioned above, will be considered for final preparation of result.
(3) There will be no negative marking.
(4) A candidate who does not appear in paper-I, will not be permitted to appear in paper-II and paper-III.
(5) For Visually Handicapped (VH) candidates thirty minutes extra time shall be provided separately for paper - I and paper - II. For Paper - III forty five minutes extra time shall be provided. They will also be provided the services of a scribe who would be a graduate in a subject other than that of the candidate. Those Physically Handicapped (PH) candidates who are not in a position to write in their own hand writing can also avail these services by making prior request (at least one week before the date of SET) in writing to the centre superintendent. Extra time and facility of scribe would not be provided to other Physically Handicapped candidates.
(6) In case of any discrepancy found in the English and Hindi version, the questions in English version shall be taken as final.
Perusal of the above para reveals as to what would be minimum marks to be obtained by the candidates. It is further provided that after obtaining minimum qualifying marks, the candidates would be considered for final preparation of result. Meaning thereby, only those would be considered for final result who have obtained minimum qualifying marks in the selection test. The respondents considered cases of those candidates who have obtained minimum qualifying marks, however, separate cut off marks for certificate of eligibility are provided and aforesaid has been questioned by the petitioners.
The requirement of NET/ SET etc was provided by the UGC under its Regulations of 2000. Clauses 3.3.1 and 4.4.1 thereof are quoted hereunder for ready reference -
3.3.1 NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities /Colleges/Institutions.
Provided however, that 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 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/Institutions.
4.4.1 Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Languages, Law, Journalism and Mass Communication i. Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an 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.
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.
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 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/Institutions.
iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/ SLET/ SET is not conducted.
As per the provisions quoted above, one is required to possess the qualification of NET/ SLET/ SET to become eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer. The UGC, while holding the test of NET, took some criteria as applied by the respondents herein. Therein also, cut off marks were finally prescribed. The only difference shown by learned counsel for petitioners is of the language of the advertisement. Therein, it was provided that only such candidates, who obtain minimum required marks in each paper, would be considered for final preparation of the result and the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and eligibility for Lectureship would be decided by the UGC before declaration of the result. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, similar provision was not provided in the advertisement herein. To make a comparison between the two, it would be necessary to first quote relevant paras which were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court for NET. Para 12 of the judgment in the case of Neha Anil Bobde (supra) is quoted hereunder so as to see what language has been used therein -
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 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. 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:
Session Paper Marks Number of Question Duration First I 100 60 out of which 50 questions to be attempted 1 1/4 Hours(09.30 AM to 10.45 AM) First II 100 50 questions are compulsory 1 1/4 Hours (10.45 to 12.00 Noon) Second III 150 75 questions all are compulsory 2 1/2 Hours (01.30 PM to 04.00 PM) 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, 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 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-III shall consist of 75 objective type compulsory 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-III on the Optical Mark Reader (OMR) sheet provided along with the Test 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-III as given below:
Minimum Marks (%) to be obtained CATEGORY PAPER-I PAPER-II PAPER-III GENERAL 40 (40%) 40 (40%) 75 (50%) OBC (Non-
35 (35%) 35 (35%) 67.5 creamy layer (45%) rounded off to 68 PH/VH/SC/ST 35 (35%) 35 (35%) 60 (40%) Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required marks in each Paper, separately, as mentioned above, will 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.
The perusal of the last para shows similar language as has been used in the advertisement in question i.e. to say that only such candidates who obtain minimum required marks in each paper separately, would be considered for final preparation of the result. Para 13 of the judgment in the case referred to above makes a reference of the provision and decision thereupon. Para 13 of the said judgment is also quoted hereunder for ready reference -
13. UGC, accordingly, conducted the examination on 24th 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 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 The candidates are required to obtain minimum marks separately in Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III as given below:
Table (i) Category Minimum Marks (%) to be obtained Paper-I Paper-II Paper-III General 40(40%) 40(40%) 75(50%) OBC 35(35%) 35(35%) 67.5(45%) (rounded off to 68) SC/ST/PWD 35(35%) 35(35%) 60(40%) Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required 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.
III. QUALIFYING CRITERIA 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 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 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) Category Minimum Qualifying Percentage Paper-I Paper-II Paper-III Aggregate General 40 % 40 % 50 % 65 % OBC 35 % 35 % 45 % 60 % SC/ST/PWD 35 % 35 % 40 % 55 % As per the above criteria, it was found by the Committee that a total of 43974 candidates qualify for lectureship eligibility.
The issue was then considered in subsequent paras. Paras 18 to 24, 27 and 29 of the judgment are also quoted hereunder for ready reference -
18 We notice, the candidates who have obtained the minimum marks in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III approached 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 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, it was also pointed out that 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 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 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 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.
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 examination on 24th June, 2012. After prescribing that the candidates were required to obtain minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, there is no justification in superimposing an additional qualifying criteria before the declaration of the results.
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 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 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 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 Mudholkar 1963 Supp 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 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 promotion and coordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of 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 ... 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 possess the educational qualifications required for holding the post of lecturer in Universities and 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 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 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 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 implementing such recommendation [clause (d)]. 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 education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of such functions [clause (j)].......
22. The judgment referred to above was later followed in University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Ors. (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 Annamalai University represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 590, wherein this Court reiterated that the UGC 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 (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 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. 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 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 III. 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 and eligibility for lectureship shall be decided by UGC before 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 in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III;
(ii) Candidates who have satisfied the above criteria only would be subjected to a qualifying criteria before the final preparation of result; (Consideration Zone)
(iii) UGC has to fix the final qualifying criteria before the declaration of results.
24. Candidates are seeking final declaration of results the moment they have obtained the minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, 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 Examination, 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 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 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 making such recommendations has also been highlighted in the Report.
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 Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion 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 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, 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 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.
The perusal of the paras quoted above reveals as to whether final marks can be provided by the UGC and as to whether this court should interfere in such academic matters. If the language of para 8 of the advertisement is looked into, it clearly signifies about final preparation of the result from and amongst the candidates obtaining minimum qualifying marks. If the aforesaid condition would not have been provided in the advertisement, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners could have been accepted, however, condition for preparation of final result cannot be ignored. The size of the result, as referred in the judgment supra, is 7% as to the number of candidates appeared and it is the case of the petitioners that respondents have restricted result to the extent of 7%. If that is so, it comes out to be as per the criteria laid down by the UGC for declaration of final result of NET.
The grievance of the petitioners is now in reference to the new advertisement issued where it is clearly mentioned that size of the final result would be to the extent of 15% of the candidates apply for the test. According to learned counsel for petitioners, even for the previous selection, final result should have been to the extent of 15% of the total candidates.
I find aforesaid argument to be unacceptable. If the Regulations and the directions given by the UGC and as referred by the Apex Court are looked into, result can be kept limited to 7% of the number of candidates appeared, thereby, if the result has been restricted by the Commission to that extent, it is not illegal merely for the reason that in the next selection it has been enhanced to the extent of 15%. In my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the Commission to provide final criteria to declare a candidate to be qualified for SET, rather, the issue is now covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neha Anil Bobde (supra).
In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly, writ petitions so as the stay applications are dismissed.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J