Dear friends and NET June 2012 victims,
The provisional answerkeys were published and a lot of students identified themselves as they achieved the said criteria. But when the result published on 19th September 2012, they cannot see their roll number in the list. The UGC had changed the criteria upto aggregate 65%,60% and 55% , respectively for each category apart from the minimum prescribed in earlier notification is required to pass the NET. The students held organised and petitions were filed in various High courts. The allahabad high court first gave judgements in favour og UGC, but the Judgement of Kerala High court Single Bench was a milestone in this issue. All other including Nagpur bench of Mumbai high court is fully or partly based on these Judgement. The same Judgement is given by UGC to review in the Division Bench including Chief Justice of Kerala High Court and the final order is reserved and not announced yet. 12 August will be the next date of spoken in the Court. In the mean time on 29th May 2012 Division bench at Nagpur ordered UGC to issue certificate to petitioners with in 8 weeks. The intention of UGC was to go SC and they applied for certificate. UGC prepared 17 Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the verdict of Nagpur Bench for 17 writ petitions filed including Neha Bobde anil.
When SLP was filed due notice received for respondent Neha, because to reduce the cost of filing UGC had filed only one SLP against Neha. On the first day when the SLP was in causelist of SC, it was postponed to the last week of July 2013. The SLP No is 19933 of 2013. It was first postponed due to acknowledgement of UGC that their advocate cannot present in the court on that date. On the next date two more SLP was also filed. Besides these an intervension petition was filed by Kerala petitioners. The SC postponed the case to consider the corrected SLP of UGC. August 7th, 2013 was the last date of hearing in which court postponed the matter upto 16th August referring that a case of similar nature for which verdict is reserved is to be announced before that date and the case will be considered only after that.
I will post the updates as early as possible here only when authentic information is received.
Facebook groups related to get justice for June 2012 victims are multiplying day by day. By the result declaration of December one of the group became inactive. Small groups created by Kerala are also became inactive. After Nagpur and the Pre-SC period, half a dozen more facebook groups came and most of them were formed out of the difference in opinion with major group. The collection were made through a bank account to help Nagpur petitioners,but when it became a controversy and Neha cleared that she never asked any financial help and she will bear it for her personal case. Then they deviated that their aim is to give intervention petition and Advocate nagendra roy were appointed as advocate for intervenes.
I have earlier said that UGC is preparing to approach SC, but the facebook users,even came here and said I was misread the Judgement of Nagpur and UGC can't approach SC because the court ordered them not to approach SC. I was being illustrated as negative character and even as a mentally disordered person for stating that fact. But know SC factor is clear now. And some doubts are still existing
Question1- Will UGC's SLP be rejected by SC?
Answer- The acceptance and rejection of a petition including special Leave Petition has multiple meaning. For a layman accepting means accepting the copy of application for SLP. It is accepted by SC and so got numbered. Before such acceptance,there is an informal discussion of matter in SC, in that informal session SC may advice the party to follow through or not to follow through. For this SLP, there may have occured such informal discussion and the advice may have given to submit the SLP and in this sense it is being accepted. The claim of facebook leaders were that it will be rejected even before getting a number. The second meaning of accepatance or rejection is allowing the arguments cited in SLP in favour of the party given. Here SLP accepted means, the matter and arguments of UGC need some more consideration and there exist some legal merit for the arguments of UGC. It is accepted or rejected after one or two hearing. If accepted the case will be finished only after minimum of two years. If rejected UGC may have one more chance to review it in Full bench.
Question2- Which case is SC referring and coined with SLP of UGC?
Answer- It is the case involved with competition commission. Hemani malhothra Vs Delhi high court
You can read and download it from here
It is referred as the most probable case,but it is not sure that Competition Commission is involved in this case. Some people says that there are some other cases which is related with Competition Commission but no relation with 'change the rule in the middle of game'.
Question 3- Has Kerala High Court Division Bench order any relevancy at present
Answer- The matter is considering in SC and so in normal condition it is not relevant. But this case is abnormal one and we should have observe it in another view. Some people even believe that SC is referred the Kerala Division Bench Order, where Chief Justice was present in the Division Bench and Shri. Mohan Parasenan, the Solicitor general was submitted the arguments for UGC. The kerala High Court single bench order is the one which is milestone and contradicted each argument of UGC with legal points. UGC has also given importance to Kerala Division Bench than Nagpur, and so Solicitor was present in Kerala,where in Nagpur they even did not submitted the document asked by the Judges- Means they neglected it and concentrated in Kerala. So the order reviewing the single bench order which is reserved by DB of Kerala is coming(if comes out) will be the result of the more arguments by UGC (SG) and candidate's advocates
Question 4- Is the problem solved and do all candidate's having minimum get certificate?
Answer- Simply speaking, except some extreme candidates who believe that they can't crack NET anymore knew the ultimate truth. Even the petitioner,if spoken to their conscience, might knew the minimum was not enough to pass NET and something more was needed. Except some special characters nonone will appear an exam to get the minimum and should try for more. But UGC made some serious fault. In notification they can be said some more clearly as "the criteria may change and and a plus or minus 10% (increase or decrease) can be have while announcing result. They never do nothing like that and so prejudice came in the mind of some students. But for that fault UGC has to pay a lot. Some lazy people having very just minimum is demanding to make them passed. The advocates and Judges who deals with this case is well aware that in a transition process from descriptive to objective, some faults are inevitable. Thus UGC will never issue certificate for 2lacs unless there is a court order. The court may favor candidates and firstly they order to issue certificates to petitioners