Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The stand of the University in its statement of objections is that prescription of passing NET has a laudable object to be served; that it is a national policy as evolved by the combined efforts of the University Grants Commission, ICAR and CSIR to prescribe the passing of NET as an eligibility Page 1374 criterion for all persons who apply for teaching posts in universities and affiliated institutions; that the professional bodies like UGC, ICAR and CSIR are to conduct NET in different subjects with which they are concerned; that the University has been uniformly following this eligibility criterion as a compulsory requirement for all persons who apply for teaching posts in the University; and that the posts advertised being teaching posts, the prescription of NET certificate is justified, relevant and cannot be questioned. It is also urged that the University has taken a decision to prescribe equivalent NET certificates in respect of subjects with which the scientific bodies like ICAR and CSIR are concerned, and wherein the Board is not conducting the tests to indicate the possible NET certificate which could be possessed by persons having the post-graduate qualification in the particular subject in respect of which the professional body is not conducting a test; that pursuant to a recommendation made by the Academic Council in its 152nd meeting which had occasion to examine this question of the professional bodies not conducting the tests in respect of some subjects, such as Sericulture, Horticulture, Agricultural Marketing and Cooperation and Post Harvest Processing and Food Engineering, in respect of which, NET is not being conducted, the possible NET test which the applicants for the posts in such subjects could have acquired was indicated; that pursuant to the recommendation, the Board of Regents of the University in its 316th meeting has approved the same and this has been prescribed to be the eligibility criterion. It is submitted that insofar as acquiring the NET certificate is concerned, in the two notifications published for filling up of the posts, this equivalent NET is indicated; that such prescription is perfectly in order, as it has the effect of maintaining the standards in the University particularly, as persons who are selected to teach the students should be having sufficient qualification for which evaluation of such test is conducted and therefore, no complaint can be made against the prescription of such eligibility just because the petitioners do not possess this qualification. It is also submitted that prescribing such pass in NET had been questioned before this Court even earlier in Writ Petition No. 49522/2004 connected with 22376/2004 and that this Court in terms of the order dated 2nd August 2005, copy produced at Annexure-L to the Writ Petition No. 4343/2006, repelled an such contentions and had dismissed the writ petitions but, had nevertheless observed that it was for the University to seek relaxation from the ICAR; that the University had in fact made such an attempt to seek relaxation from the requirement of teachers in Universities having passed NET, particularly in favour of candidates who apply for filling up of backlog vacancies, but the ICAR having not acceded to this request, it became inevitable for the University to adhere to the requirement; and that while there was an attempt on the part of the University to provide some relaxation in favour of persons who apply in respect of backlog vacancies as the University had found it was hard to get applicants having such qualification, the effort on the part of the University was not fruitful and therefore, it had become inevitable to prescribe the same as a qualification both for filling up of the vacancies in General and backlog categories.

Page 1375

13. Insofar as the distinction made on behalf of the Ph.D holders who have acquired prior to 2002 and after 2002 and so also M.Phil qualified persons before 1993 and after 1993 is concerned, the stand of the University is that this concession or relaxation had been made by the University Grants Commission itself which in fact was the one which was also instrumental in indicating that NET test is a must for teachers in the Universities; that this being a decision which had been taken at the National level by all the professional bodies like UGC, ICAR and CSIR, the University has merely followed the same and therefore, no exception can be taken in the university extending the concession; that while earlier it was thought that a higher qualification in itself was a guarantee of the standard or the skill of a person applying for the teaching post, that view having been reconsidered and particularly, the ICAR which is the professional body which looks into the research activities and in fact funds the University in respect of the subjects taught by the University having opined that NET qualification is a necessary qualification irrespective of the higher qualification like Ph.D or M.Phil on and after the year 2002, the requisition of acquiring the NET certificate is being uniformly insisted upon and the University having followed the guidance of the professional bodies and that the eligibility criterion having been prescribed on the basis of past experience in the functioning of the Universities and particularly, in imparting education to teachers, the distinction made is valid, justified etc., and the petitioners cannot make a grievance of the same.

16. It is also submitted that as ICAR is the controlling body insofar as the financial aspects is concerned and in respect of the teaching posts which are directly under the patronage of ICAR, the professional body having not acceded to the relaxation of the requirement of the applicants holding NET certificate, it became necessary for the University to devise a way under which persons who were unable to acquire an NET certificate in such subject could at least acquire NET certificate in the nearest subject in respect of which the Board is conducting an NET or the other so that the insistence on the part of the ICAR is also met.

17. In the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the ICAR what has been pointed out is that the tests are conducted for the purpose of evaluation of the quality and standards of persons who have completed post graduate education in science subjects; and that the test is one which is designed to evaluate the aptitude of such persons for teaching and the test having been designed by a professional body ensures that persons with sufficient teaching skill and aptitude are given the certificate and get in to teaching jobs. The post graduates in the subject who are also interested in teaching job can pass the test and acquire the necessary eligibility; and that the prescribing of the eligibility test is fully justified and warranted. It is also pointed out in the counter and submitted by Sri. P.R. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for ICAR that the recruitment board itself has indicated as to the NET examination which can be attempted by persons with what qualification i.e., the particular NET for the particular subject is also indicated and it is for such persons who have qualification in the subject to acquire the corresponding NET to appear and pass in the corresponding NET examination. If a person is not one who had the commensurate qualification for appearing in that corresponding NET examination, such a person win not be permitted to write the NET examination.