There are two type of verdict possible from the DB. If the DB concurs with Single Bench then the UGC will go for appeal in SC and then the SC word will be the final. SC seldom refutes a verdict that has got concurrence at all the levels at HC. But there is a second possibility of DB delivering a indulgent Judgement that is difficult for any party to challenge by invoking a SLP at SC. IF KHC does not do it then the scamsters in UGC/ MHRD will ensure that one of the HC in India does it. This happened earlier when UGC 2006 Second Amended regulation was challenged with respect to Teachers Recruitment Board Notification in Tamilnadu. The TRB notified that all of NET, MPhil and PhD can apply as per UGC's then regulation for which it will award a weightage of 15 for PhD and 0 for rest. There were several petitions filed in every angle by PhD holders, MPhil holders and MPhil (Before '93) etc. Justice Prabha Sreedhevan awarded stay of both the TRB Notification and UGC regulation in Single Bench and that created euphoria to all the petitioners. Things went for appeal to DB in many HC, including Madras HC. Justice Ibrahim Khalifulla + 1 listened to the arguments of all the parties in the DB creating hope for all by every day by his observations. In the end he vacated the stay and Ordered that TRB should award 9 marks for PhD, 6 for Mphil and 5 for NET (No basis specified for it) for which every advocates representing their clients claimed victory. Practically that did not meant anything to the petitioners for all the TRB positions got awarded to PhD holders only for the rest cold not bridge the gap. They could not bridge the gap even if it is 3 for PhD, 2 and 1 for MPhil and NET for even a single mark difference will ensure bias. The SC dismissed all the SLPs filed for they felt the innovative(!) Judgement of MHC ensured Justice. In our case if the DB of KHC Ordered that cut off is neither 65% as per revised UGC nor 50% as per original notification but, 60% by its Order, then it will create the same fix!