The Hindu News : UGC appeal on NET posted for January 21 (Latest Update on January 11, 2013)

[Iranna Shettar]

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Thursday posted for final hearing on January 21 an appeal filed by the UGC against a single judge’s verdict quashing the new qualifying criteria prescribed by the UGC in the National Eligibility Test for lectureships.

The single judge had held that the UGC regulations did not confer any right on the UGC to fix a high mark after holding the NET. Nor could such criteria be introduced through regulation just before the announcement of the results by executive orders.

The introduction of the new criteria was not supported by the law. As per the new criteria, candidates in the general category who had scored an aggregate of 65 per cent for all the three papers would be eligible for lectureship. While the OBC candidates needed 60 per cent, the SC/ST candidates needed 55 per cent.

The single judge had also declared that the petitioners who had obtained separate minimum marks prescribed in the UGC notification had cleared the NET. The court had ordered that they should be given the necessary certificates in a month.

When the appeal came up for hearing before the Bench comprising Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice K.Vinod Chandran, counsel for the UGC S.Krishnamoorthy contended that the High Court had no right to make a declaration regarding the result of a test.

It had been clearly stated in the original notification that the candidates should obtain minimum required marks in each paper separately. It had also been said that the qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship and eligibility for lectureship would be decided by the UGC before the declaration of results.

It was a moderation committee appointed by the UGC and consisting of senior academicians who had recommended that the general, OBC (non-creamy layer) and the SC/ST candidates would be required to obtain an aggregate percentage of 65, 60 and 55 respectively in addition to the paper-wise minimum percentage as qualifying criteria.

The notification had clearly said that the final cut-off marks shall be decided by the commission before the declaration of results. The single judge’s ruling would lower the standard of education.

The appeal said that in order to maintain high standards in education, prescription of an aggregate percentage in an examination was well within the powers of the UGC.

Prescribing the qualifying criteria by fixing an aggregate percentage could not be called change of rules in the middle of the test.

 

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/ugc-appe...

[Rameshwar Dayal]

Dear Sir,

I want to say only that UGC have only right to do anything (arbitrariness) in the country. Courts in India or in any country are made for justice. Main aim of establishment of court is to keep justice in the society. Otherwise everyone will do arbitrainess. Is UGC beyond from justice. All citizen have the rights to move in the court against unjustice. If UGC conducted ONE exam for net by single notification then ugc should be follow the same criteria for all subject. thats all. UGC provides eligibility certificates only not job. Several students got  less percentage like  42% and 39.88% but they passed. Law should be equal for each & every one..

Regards!

[Zainul Abideen]

I could not yet understand what is wrong with UGC! They had already mentioned that the candidates must at least secure minimum specified marks for consideration while preparing final results! That is, they had -in the notification itself- mentioned the final criterion will be decided while preparing final results..... They have been doing so for many years!! This is not the first time they do so. Please check the criterion for the results in the previous exams...... still available in the ugc site........ What we have to understand is unlike PSC (Kerala PSC while preparing shortlist do not consider any minimum marks... they just fix a minimum cut off mark for list based only on the number of candidates to be included in the list... this may vary from 80 to 20 and even minus marks!!!.... for supplementary list those who have scored zero also is considered!... ) Anyway, the case has an adverse effect!! Now they have decided to include only fifteen percent of candidates from the top to be qualified!!!!!!

[PROSENJIT DEY]

 IF SUPREME COURTE IS TALKING ABOUT  LOWERING THE EDUCATION STANDARD THEN WHY AGAIN 65,60,55% CUT OFF MARKS ? WHY NOT 65% ONLY FOR ALL TO MAINTAIN EDUCATION STANDARD ? WHY THIS DISCRIMINATION OF CUT OFF MARKS?
SOURCE: THE HINDU

[Veeresh Hiremath]

You hit the nail right on its head.  Good PROSENJIT. May be this discrimination is essentially required to maintain educational imbalances for the benefit of the chosen few!

[Iranna Shettar]

Reservation is a form of affirmative action designed to improve the well-being of backward and under-represented communities defined primarily by their 'caste'. It's a phenomenon that commenced with the coming into force of the Indian Constitution.

Thus this is not a platform to discuss anybody’s or somebody’s constitutional Rights...

[Veeresh Hiremath]

I guess everybody is free to exercise their Constitutional Right to freedom of speech (Expression).  This platform can be used to mobilise various views on the subject which relates to the core and crux of the health of a profession of which we are a part.  Nobody should have a problem with it.

[Nilanjan Sen]

Very good judgement

[Mushtaq Ahmad]

Vry nice decision