Ankita Sharma & Ors v. University Grants Commission & Ors

2. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid decision of UGC, the petitioners filed these writ petitions seeking the following reliefs "a) Quash the additional qualifying eligibility criteria thereby fixing an aggregate of 65% as qualifying eligibility criteria in respect of the National Education Testing (NET) Examination heldon24^June, 2012 and b) direct the Respondent not to give any affect to the additional qualifying eligibility criteria during the pendency ofthe present petition"

3. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that UGC lacked competence to fix the aggregate marks as the qualifying criteria after the candidates had obtained the minimum marks, as prescribed in the notification dated 06.12.2012 before the declaration of results. Similar view was taken by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. Being aggrieved from the said decisions, University Grants Commission filed appeal to the Supreme Court by way of special leave. Setting aside the decisions ofBombay High Court, the Apex Court held as under:- "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 criteriaas per clause 7, in ourview, does not amount to a change in the rule of the game as it was aheady pre-meditated inthe 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 JRJF. 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 formaking such recommendations has also been highlighted in the Report.

28. We are of the considered view that the candidates were not misled in any manner. Much emphasis has been made on the words "clearing the NationalEligibility Test". "Clearing" means clearing the final results, not merely passing in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, which is only the initial step, not final. To clear the NET Examination, as already indicated, the candidate should satisfy the final qualifying criteria laid down by the UGC before declaration of the results.

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 vs. C.D. Govinda Rao. AIR 1965 SC 491. Taria Islam vs. AUgarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 andRaibir Singh Dalai vs. ChaudhaiT Devi Lai 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 dkect 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 appeals filed by UGC were, therefore, allowed and thejudgment passed by the Bombay High Court was set aside. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the challenge in these writ petition^ necessarily fail. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. ^V.K. JAIN, J OCTOBER 03, 2013 BG