LexUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR. versus NEHA ANIL BOBDE (GADEKAR)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 521 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR. V. NEHA ANIL BOBDE (GADEKAR) (Civil Appeal No. 8355 of 2013 etc.) SEPTEMBER 19, 2013. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] University Grants Commission Act, 1956: A B ss.12 and 26 - National Eligibility Test 2012 conducted c by UGC - Challenges on the ground that changes of qualifying criteria reflected in final declaration of final results was arbitrary, illegal, without authority and violative of Arl. 14 of the Constitution - Held: All the steps taken by UGC were strictly in accordance with clause 7 of the Notification for NET 0 Examination, 2012 - Prescribing the qualifying criteria as per clause 7 does not amount to a change in the rule as it was already pre-meditated in the notification - It cannot be said that the UGC has acted arbitrarily or whimsically against the candidates - To clear the NET Examination, means clearing E the final results, not merely passing in individual papers, which is only the initial step - Candidate should satisfy the final qualifying criteria laid down by UGC before declaration F of results - It is open to UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, i.e. for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research - UGC has only implemented the opinion of Experls by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Arl. 14 of the Constitution of India - University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010. G Universities: Academic matters - Held: In academic matters, unless 521 H 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, Regulations or Notification issued, courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within domain of the experts. Pursuant to the Notification issued by the University B Grants Commission (UGC) on 06.02.2012 for determination of the eligibility for the award of JRF and the eligibility for lectureship in Universities and Colleges, National Eligibility Test (NET) was conducted on 24.6.2012. On 17 .9.2012, the Moderation Committee constituted by the UGC recommended that qualifying C criteria for eligibility for lecturership for General, OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) and SC/ST/PWD candidates would be an aggregate percentage of 65%, 60% and 55% respectively in addition to the paper-wise minimum percentage presented in clause 7 of the UGC NET D Notification for June 2012. Accordingly, the result was declared on 18.9. 2012. Subsequently, on some representations and in view of the decision of the Expert Committee, UGC prepared and declared supplementary result on 12.11.2012 qualifying 15, 178 additional E candidates. The candidates who had obtained the minimum marks in Paper I, Paper II and Paper Ill, approached the High Court seeking a declaration that the change of qualifying criteria reflected in the final declaration of results was arbitrary, illegal and violative F of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the UGC to declare the results with reference to the minimum marks prescribed. G In the instant appeals filed by UGC and others, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether the University Grants Commission had the power to fix the final qualifying criteria, for those who have obtained the minimum marks for all the papers, before the final declaration of the results of the National Eligibility Test H for the year 2012. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL 523 BOBDE (GADEKAR) Allowing the appeals, the Court A HELD: 1.1Section12 of the UGC Act, 1956 states that it shall be the general duty of the UGC to take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the 8 promotion and co-ordination of University education.The UGC as an expert body has been entrusted by UGC Act the general duty to take such steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. It is C also duty bound to perform such functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher education in India. The UGC has also got the power to define the qualification that should ordinarily be required for any person to be appointe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.