To

The Honorable Chief Justice of India

Supreme Court of India

Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001

India

Subject:  A flagrant injustice done by UGC to Students who took UGC NET June 2012.

(Matter related to CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8355 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19933 of 2013] University Grants Commission & Anr. .. Versus Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.)

Honorable Sir,

             We all the citizens of India hereby humbly admit that we have an abiding faith in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and its judgments and rulings; and we reverently follow them all. We have utmost trust and faith in the Judiciary system of India, here; we would like to bring your kind attention to the case regarding National Eligibility Test- June 2012 conducted by University Grants Commission, New Delhi.

In this exam many anomalies crept, which are related to qualification criterion, main result and supplementary result of the same Exam.

          UGC in a notification for the advertisement of NET exam- June 2012 had displayed fixed qualifying criterion for all the categories in a clear-cut terms.  But to our great Surprise, after the announcement of the result of the said exam, UGC in a shocking and arbitrarily manner altered its minimum criterion of qualification, which was raised way higher than the one which was fixed earlier and advertised in the notification for net june-2012 exam.

Because of this flawed and sudden change in criterion after examination, more than 1  lakh and 45 thousand examinees were deprived of the opportunity for the noble profession of lectureship, simply because of UGC fault , which has, no doubt, adversely affected the course of their life and of all the members in their family who solely depended on them. All The candidates who have fallen victims to this flawed decision of UGC are youth and are working for private Institutions as bonded labours on paltry sum of salary. Because of ugc’s arbitrary and myopic decision Dreams of their bright future are shattered to pieces ……

To this injustice, these victims have filed writ petitions in different STATE HIGH COURTS of India, all the resultant decisions of the different state high courts as mentioned below were in the favor of 1 lakh and 45 thousand NET victims.

A few of them are mentioned below for your kind reference and attention -

1- THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4996 OF 2012---- (DOUBLE BENCH)

2- THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA IN CWP Nos.4602 of 2013 and 4698 of 2013 ---- (DOUBLE BENCH)

3- THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P. (C) No. 22187 OF 2012

4- THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE IN W.P. No.1213 OF 2013

5- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR IN W.P. No. 41 OF 2013

6- THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS IN W.P. No. 9962 OF 2013

7- THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN W.P. (MD) No. 2616 OF 2013

8- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR IN W.P. No. 3538 OF 2013

9- THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE IN W.P. No.41637 OF 2012.

     In reply, UGC has filed SLP (civil) N0 19933 of 2013 against the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur. And the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted UGC SLP by setting aside the verdict of Hon'ble Nagpur High Court and also said that UGC has right to introduce qualification criterion and what it did was nothing arbitrary and illegal.

Your honor, we have tremendous respect for Hon'ble Supreme Court and verdict it has passed in this regard. But then again, we all the victims want to humbly bring to your kind  notice that there were still certain crucial points which were not legally considered  as we were not given the proper opportunity to present our case effectively because of distortion of facts and truth by UGC. Therefore, we are imploring and requesting you with greater hope and optimism to reconsider points enumerated here below.

1)                  UGC has announced two results: one main and another supplementary. In the second results , UGC has declared some candidate qualified from Computer Science etc., who had scored  merely 40% marks in aggregate ; whereas candidate in Law, Commerce and other subjects having secured 64.50% were disqualified. The same exam notification was applicable to all the subjects, as Paper 1^st was common for all and as such qualifying criterion must be one and same for all; but UGC has made a great deal of discrimination so far as the Supplementary result is concerned.  Prima facie  this act of UGC is a sheer infringement of our fundamental right to equality (Article 14).

2)                  Secondly, UGC had formed a moderation committee of senior academicians who have hurriedly fixed faulty qualifying criteria based on complete discrimination, because  how a candidates with a score  of 40%  marks became net qualified and how a candidate with a score of 64.50%   did not !!!!! . We want to ask through your esteemed office, under what authority these academician can take such an outrageous decision according to there whims and fancies . We, 1 lakh and 45 thousands citizens of India, looking at your esteemed office for answers to this question not yet answered…...

3)                  Thirdly, UGC has repeatedly hollered aloud and tried to convince the Hon'ble Supreme Court  that it has already cleared in the notification that qualifying criterion will be fixed in the wake of the result is out.  But see what UGC has put there in the Notification. - “Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required marks in each paper, separately, as  mentioned above, will be considered for final preparation of result. However, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration of Result.”

But this condition was not meant for category 2^nd Eligibility for Lectureship Only paper  .

 As even in the application form and question paper of net exam there is column in which each candidate  has to mention whether a candidate is applying  :-

1)      JRF and eligibility for lectureship both. (Limited Seats)

OR

2)      Eligibility for lectureship only. (Unlimited Seats)

This is clearly mentioned on page No 16 and 17 of judgment (civil appeal N0 8355 of 2013 [Arising out of SLP (civil) N0 19933 of 2013] passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-

 Para 16. The Committee revisited the results and decided to qualify a few additional candidates for JRF and eligibility for lectureship both and eligibility for lectureship only……

Therefore, terms and conditions contained in UGC notifications were applicable to category

1) JRF and eligibility for lectureship both, and not for the category 2) Eligibility for lectureship only.

And the question in dispute is only for category second. UGC has wrongly and deliberately applied this wrong criteria to the category second as well.  ugc has distorted facts and fabricated false arguments before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

 In December 2012, UGC has removed the said clause just before 03 days of exam to save its own skin. Secondly, what UGC did in NET June 2012, it didn’t do in Dec. 2012. We mean that it did not change qualifying criterion after the results were out. But, why in NET June 2012 only this has raises question and doubts…….

 4)        it must be noted that how often qualifying criterion has changed for net june 2012.exam , After the exam is over….. is a sheer example of uncertainity and arbitrary action on the part of ugc …..Please  have a look at it from following table.

It is crystal clear that UGC has repeatedly altered standards and criteria for qualification and passed some candidates by going out of set norms and ways.

It is said rules of games cannot be changed in the middle of the game and uncertainty must be avoided; hence UGC can not play with  the life of students under the guise of the authorized regulations it has been entrusted.

 NET is not at all meant for recruitment or short listing for any other purposes,  so how  can UGC take such an arbitrary action and qualifies certain candidates wrongly disqualifies others wrongly. As a matter of fact, NET is just qualification for lectureship and does not guarantee  any job .

5)         In Civil APPEAL No.8355 of 2013 [arising out of SLP (civil) No.19933of 2013] University Grant commission Anr…versus Neha Anil Bobade (Gadeker) UGC has tried to misguide Hon'ble Supreme Court by providing fake information by distorting and manipulating facts…. for instance it has attached to its paper book notification of June 2013 instead of June 2012. And we believe that UGC had done it deliberately ……one can have a clear idea from line No 8 on page No 71 of SLP (Civil) No 19933/ 2013 University Grant commission Anr…versus Neha Anil Bobade (Gadeker) that in the notification of “May 2013” and Step I, Step II, Step III and Step IV mentioned in this page were missing in the UGC notification of June 2012.

               There are 79 names in the list of coordinating University/collages on page No 77 to 88 while in June 2012 there were only 74 centers for exam. Five new centers were added into the old list of December 2012 and of new list of June 2013….. How could this be possible that the half of the notifications applied form June 2012 and half from June 2013 were merged into one…..so that facts can be manipulated and distorted…

.

                Honorable Sir, we all the citizen of India, have utmost faith and belief  in judicial System of India and request your esteemed office to kindly review our case and provide justice to the 1 lakh and 45 thousand youth of this country for whom you are the last hope.

Thank You,

                                                                                    Sign………………………………….……...

Dated..                                                                        Name-………………………………………

Place-                                                                          Father’s Name-…………………………….

                                                                                    Roll No of NET June 2012- ………………

                                                                                    Address-Letter%20To%20The%20Hnbl%20CJI%20Final%20Draft%20%281%29.doc