I am more than surprised at operations of law, though being a lawyer by
training myself.
Kerala HC has already ruled that the said notification fixing the
cumulative criteria afterwards is bad in law and has given a ruling in
favor of candidates.
So, why must the same case be fought in other states to secure the
similar
ruling for all candidates?
Actually, UGC must have given benefit of the decision to all candidates
automatically, or Kerala HC must have directed it to do so.
Agreed that Writ petition is filed by an aggrieved individual, but it is
a waste of grossest kind to ask each candidate to fight separately, when
a
provision is affecting many persons.
PIL would have been a better remedy, perhaps.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Prashanth
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:52 PM
To: AccessIndia
Cc: World Opinion Google's group:
Subject: (WorldOpinion) High court's last chance for University Grants
Commission to name National Eligibility Test criteria:
Vaibhav Ganjapure, TNN Jan 8, 2013, 02.26AM IST
NAGPUR: The University Grants Commission (UGC) on Monday came under fire
from the Nagpur bench of Mumbai high court for its failure to come clear
on
the issue of fixing eligibility criteria for the National Eligibility
Test
(NET). A division bench comprising justices AP Lavande and Arun Chaudhari
granted two weeks to the apex education body as the final chance to
decide
its policy. The judges further warned that it will proceed with orders,
if
UGC fails to file a reply within the stipulated period, and asked UGC
officials to be present at the next hearing.
The court's stringent orders came while hearing a plea filed by Gokulpeth
resident Sayalee Surjuse, who has challenged a UGC notification imposing
minimum qualifying criteria for NET conducted on June 24 last year. The
test is conducted simultaneously across the country for various subjects
for lectureship and junior research fellowship (JRF).
Citing UGC's notification on its website, petitioner's counsel Trupti
Udeshi said the candidate had to score 40% in first two pears and 50% in
the third. She contended that there was no mention of the necessity to
score above a specified aggregate of all three papers, which will be the
criteria for final qualification. She also said that this criteria was
never communicated till the declaration of the result.
When NET results were declared on September 18, Sayalee was declared
failed. It was only after she enquired that she came to know that UGC had
fixed 65% aggregate criteria for the qualification. She claimed to have
scored 59.43% aggregate in all three papers and also cleared them
individually. Citing scheme of exam by UGC, she demanded that she should
be
declared successful.
She sought directives from the court to quash the UGC notification of
June
24 fixing the eligibility criteria NET at 65% aggregate for general
category by holding it arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.
The judges pulled up UGC for its lacklustre approach to the plight of
candidates from Maharashtra, stating that the apex body had not responded
properly to a case based on the same grounds in other states. In Kerala,
the HC had ruled in favour of candidates by quashing the UGC
notification,
as the number of candidates were much more.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-08/nagpur/36216041_1_ugc-notification-ugc-officials-three-papers
With thanks and regards
(Rajesh Asudani)
Assistant General Manager
Reserve Bank of India
Nagpur
Cell: 9420397185
o: +91 712 2806846
R: 2591349
(In youth you want things, and then in middle-age you want to want them.)
________________________________
Caution: The Reserve Bank of India never sends mails, smses or makes
calls
asking for personal information like your bank account details,
passwords,
etc. It never keeps or offers funds to anyone. Please do not respond in
any
manner to such offers, however official or attractive they may look.
Notice: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in
this e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email by error, please notify us by return e-mail
or
telephone and immediately and permanently delete the message and any
attachments. The recipient should check this email and any attachments
for
the presence of viruses. The Reserve Bank of India accepts no liability
for
any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
--
