07 February, 2013

UGC NET June 2012:Social Injustice against common law and academic community

In June 2012 the first time, NET was conducted in objective mode for all three papers in two sessions. Till then, the third paper in descriptive format was not favored by many. However, the relief over replacement of the descriptive format with multiple-choice questions has turned out to be short-lived.

The result was published in Sept 18,2012 and they change the criteria after four days of the publication of the result . UGC coming out with a last minute specification that an aggregate of 65 per cent in three papers was necessary for qualification for general category candidates. The qualifying minimum was fixed at 60 and 55 per cent for OBC and SC/ST/visually challenged/physically challenged categories.

The adoption of new qualifying criteria by the UGC has denied thousands of candidates an opportunity for lectureship in universities and colleges.

While the NET notification stated that the scores of only those candidates who score the minimum specified marks would be considered for the preparation of result, the UGC’s new criteria for qualification required candidates in general, OBC, and SC/ST/VC/PC categories to post minimum scores (out of 350 — 100 marks each for first and second paper, and 150 marks for third paper) of 227.5, 210, and 192.5 respectively.
Academic communities against the last minute change they conduct various protests meet all over the india against UGC and they revise the result and publish a supplementary result but unfortunately it have no criteria . A mass petition filed in Kerala HC and almost two and half months hearing procedure done in Kerala ch.

The Kerala high court on Monday ( 17 Dec ,2012) declared as illegal the changing norms after the declaration of result fixed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for the National Eligibility Test (NET) for college and university lectureship.

The main points of the Kerala High Court verdict are :-

“The power of UGC ought to have been exercised in a proper, fair and reasonable manner,” justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair held while allowing a batch of petitions challenging the new norms.

The court held that fixing of higher aggregate marks for three categories, that too just before the announcements of results, cannot be justified as the same was “not supportable by law”.

By changing the standards at the final stage and just before declaration of results, “it can be definitely be seen that it affected adversely the expectations of a large number of candidates”, the court said.

Justice P.R. Ramachandran Nair held that the UGC regulations did not confer any right on the UGC to fix high marks after holding of the NET. Nor could such criteria be introduced just before the announcement of the results by executive orders.

The introduction of the new criteria was not supported by the law.The court added that the students were jolted when all of a sudden the UGC prescribed the percentage of the aggregate marks. The adoption of such norms at the final stage and just before the declaration of the results had affected the candidates.

The change of the cut-off marks at the final stage violated Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before law).

The court also declared that the petitioners, who had obtained the separate minimum marks prescribed in the UGC notification, had cleared the NET.It also declared that all those who have obtained minimum marks prescribed in the notification have cleared NET and appropriate follow-up action be taken to issue certificates to them within one month.

Again the Kerala high court on ( 1 Jan ,2013) Tuesday also declared as :

The benefit of a single Bench order quashing the new qualifying criteria prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) after holding the National Eligibility Test (NET) for lectureships will be available to all eligible candidates.
Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair had earlier held that UGC regulations did not confer any right on the UGC to fix high marks after holding the NET.
In his order on Tuesday, Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon said the apex court had earlier held that if a judgment was rather declaratory, it would be applicable to all irrespective of the fact that they were petitioners to the case or not.

After all the efforts of affected canidates all over the India ugc have no official response about this matter .They are in silence .They play with the future and lives of many candidates.




4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Search