Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The argument offered by Sri G. K Bhattacharyya and Sri A. C. Borbora, learned senior counsels appearing for the respective respondents, insofar as the issue relating to exemption from clearing NET/SLET by the respondent No. 7 is concerned, contains a common g projection. Placing the history behind the prescription of the requirement of clearance of the eligibility test, i.e., NET/SLET and the exemption granted from the aforesaid requirement, from time to time, which facts have been noticed in a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Ors. , learned Counsels have placed before the Court a Notification dated 31.7.2002 issued by the University Grant Commission promulgating the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in universities and institutions affiliated to it) (1st Amendment) Regulations, 2002. The aforesaid notification is enclosed as Annexure-F to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, i.e., the President of the Governing Body of the College. The following a provisions as contained in the aforesaid Regulations, which is extracted below, have been placed before the Court:

11. The net result of the above discussion is that the Court must hold that the respondent No. 7 having acquired his Ph.D. degree in the year 2000 is exempted from clearing the eligibility test, i.e., NET/SLET and the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner to the contrary are not sustainable in law.

12. Having answered the first issue raised in the manner indicated above, the Court may now proceed to answer the other issues. Ph.D. is a degree awarded in recognition of original research work in any particular field. It is a recognition of the scholarly achievements of a person and the contributions to an original/innovative line of thinking a that may have been made by such a person. A person is admitted to the said degree on acceptance of a thesis by scholars who are renowned in the field. The process leading to the acquisition of the Ph.D. degree, indeed, is a laborious, painstaking and onerous one. It is, perhaps, on account of the aforesaid fact that the University Grants Commission, while granting exemption to Ph.D degree holders from clearing the NET, had taken the view that in so far Ph.D degree holders are concerned the aforesaid requirement can be safely dispensed with. NET/SLET, on the other hand, though undoubtedly, is a test of the highest order, is nevertheless an eligibility test that an ordinary postgraduate in a particular subject may take and clear. A Ph.D. degree, therefore, cannot be equated with the NET/SLET the though, i.e., grant of exemption from clearing the NET/SLET to Ph.D. degree holders, may, at first blush, indicate some semblance of deemed/conferred equality, yet, such a view, on a closer analysis must fade away. On the contrary, it would be more reasonable to hold that exemption has been granted to Ph.D. degree d holders not on a deemed/assumed equality of the said degree with the NET/SLET, but such exemption has been granted because Ph.D is a degree, acquisition of which, permits dispensation of the requirement of clearance of NET, Viewed from the aforesaid perspective the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 7 stand on an equal footing and, therefore, if the respondent No. 7 had been granted 10 marks for his Ph.D. degree, similar 10 marks should also be granted to the writ petitioner for clearing the NET, does not appear to be justified. The award of marks for academic performance and attainments is as per the scale prescribed and the notification prescribing the said scale also not being under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that it will be correct to hold that Ph.D. degree holders who had not cleared the NET would still be entitled to the award of 10 marks for the Ph.D. degree acquired by them.