Madurai: The Madras High Court has allowed a batch of writ petitions seeking to direct UGC and Bharathiar University to issue them pass certificates of NET and SET without insisting on additional criteria of getting average of marks in all three papers to qualify in the examinations.
Justice D Hariparanthanam said the petitioners, who got separate minimum marks prescribed in the notifications for Papers I, II and III should, be considered as qualified and be given the certificates for passing National Eligibility Test (NET)/State Eligibility Test (SET) within 30 days.
Petitioner N Saraswathi submitted UGC had fixed minimum qualification for appointing teachers and academic staff in universities and colleges and other steps for maintenance of standards in higher education. As per rules, there was minimum eligibility for recruitment and appointment of Assistant professors in universities, colleges, institutions to qualify in NET, SET and State Level Eligibility Test (SLET).
UGC also issued notification on June 4, 2012 for NET. It also fixed maximum marks for pass in three papers for various categories including general, OBCs and PWD/SC/ST. NET results was also published by UGC on its website in September 2012.
Saraswathi said just before publication of NET/SET results, an additional criteria was fixed for passing the tests.
Besides getting minimum percentage of marks as prescribed in the notification, an additional criteria was introduced according to which general, OBC and PWD/SC/ST categories should get an average of marks in all the three papers with at least 65 per cent, 60 and 55 per cent to qualify for the exam.
Due to this criteria, the petitioners did not secure pass mark in NET/SET and so approached the high court seeking a direction to declare them as successful in NET/SET exams.
The petitioner pointed out that the Kerala High Court had allowed a similar batch of writ petitions.
The judge said the court had observed that fixing of higher aggregate marks as 65 per cent, 60 per cent and 55 per cent for three categories, that too just before announcement of the result, could not be justified as the same is not supportable in law in light of principles already discussed.
What was absent in regulation could not be introduced at the fag end of the exam just before results were announced, whatever the justification was, he said, allowing the petitions.