At last Honorable Supreme Court Order came in favour of UGC. The Honorable Judges K Radhakrishnan and AK sikri ordered that UGC has enough power to make any criteria on or after exam so as to keep the standards of university education as it thinks fit. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by UGC against the order of Nagpur bench of Mumbai High Court has been set aside. The SLP has not only accepted but also, without further hearing has been converted to civil appeal and final order is being declared. Now further arguments or presentation of proofs are not allowed. Only an opportunity for reviewing exists with students. The review according to law of India is allowed by the same Judges, so there is no option for higher bench or bench change. If review is rejected, it will be final. So no miracle can be expected in review- In the history of Indian law field, it is in only a few cases the decision in review is reversed. As the review is done by circulating the review petition between the same Judges who made the order with no session of hearing and further arguments, it is obvious that in no case the Judges may allow review and agree their earlier decision was error.
It is useless to study and analyse the facts and faults committed by students. Yet it may help in future for dealing similar situation arises. From the straight point of view of law, if asked a question, why the students failed in supreme court, is that there was no justice in the part of students. As Justice Tandon, of Allahabad bench observed, students should have an open eye to read the notification before exam. Though it is right, still in the whole scenario taken in to account, some students actually had not a well understanding especially on taking aggregate. In the previous version of NET, the Paper I and II were just entry level and scoring the required percentage was sufficient for a win. So for June 2012 exam many of the students didnot prepared well for Paper I feeling it will be less significant. In many subject, there were more than 5 specialised option for Paper III, and candidates were allowed to select the option and attend the optional questions only. But for June 2012, questions from all options came and students needed to attempt all. This issue was not brought forward by students as it is more than criteria change. UGC had not changed the syllabus for June 2012, and students expect they could select the option in one section of Paper III. For example for commerce there were options lile 1) Marketing 2) HRM 3) Accounting 4) Taxation etc. 75 out of 200 marks were for each option or specialisation. A candidate who attempt question from Marketing need not/ should not attempt accounting question. Without announcing such changes in syllabus students attended the exam of June 2012. Now some of reasons why students got an unfavorable order is described below
1) There was no co-ordination among students. Delhi wing, Nagpur wing and Kerala wing acted their own and no coordination provide only confusion. Petitioners as well as non petitioners were not well organised. Even the advocates were selected by the Nagpur petitioner and she rejected no help from others who were ready to help in finance.
2) The over confidence- Students were over confident on a victory by we will win 100% comments in facebook. Leaders in facebook are just bringing them to an imaginary world of false hope. Even a comment with a little negativity was brutally attacked by leaders and followers of face book groups- They were not ready to take precautions on that negativities and realise the facts in such comments. Even some people could believe the unfavorable SC order just because they were lead in to a dreamy world than reality. The allahabad order like unfavorable which came before SC was not discussed in Face book. Leaders kept hiding this things from members and only repeated we will win 100%. This made a fall from everest on SC order, if they were realised the chances are 50 50 earlier and were in a world of reality, the depth of disappointment after SC may be less.
3) The kerala group tried a lot with planning. As UGC was withdrawing from Nagpur by not presenting papers and this made Kerala team suspicious.The victory on Nagpur and UGC's selection of SLP against a petitioner having legal back ground made the doubts more. Some people smell some thing wrong in the selection of UGC as there was more than 72 petitioners in Nagpur. So interventions were made by Kerala team. Without a senior advocate Nagpur team came in SC, which was a great fault. On the last hearing, the Kerala advocate was busy in another case and his absence caused a great loss.
4) The nagpur petitioner acknowledged (Mr baliram) that he has filed a caveat petition and later Manish approved that. Actually it was not filed. This made to lossing the chance of presenting the students side to judges and so only after UGC's hearing, students advocates could argue.
5) The ground in SC arguments were limited only with powers of UGC deciding criteria. The syllabus, nature of papers considered etc were not submitted. For scoring aggregate 65% in the exam, a total of 116 questions were needed to correct subject to minimum. But a candidate who understood first and second paper as entry level and no significance in valuation may work for getting 20 and 20 questions right in Paper I and II. So 116- 40= 76 questions remaining him to be qualified. This means it will be out of his capacity because there is only 75 questions in Paper III. How can he correct 76 questions out of 75 or score 152 marks out of 150. This was more than criteria change. But the same was not pointed out.
So it happened and no further arguments is relevant. SC order is final and only a crucial review remains. The review is said to be crucial because it is the last chance. No appeals can be made if review is rejected. If any candidate makes a fresh appeal in the court on the same ground, it will be rejected by the High Court by citing that SC has already ordered in the same matter. Thus in a check mate position. Only one column remains in 8 nearby columns. There is no doubt that if you pray for the same things for which SC ordered against, you are wasting a chance of legal help. So review petition should be made carefully and consider the following
1) Some students really had a prejudice because of uncertainity in notification and not disclosing the real figure, fixed criteria in notification. So it is the right of student to clearly understand the criteria to be achieved before exam. Even the culprit ordered to be hang (sentenced to death) will be acknowledged the date of his punishment so as to prepare him for death. So the Judges should consider the genuine case of students
2) So much candidates have been already applied for posts when High court orders came. It is once in 5 or 6 years the job opportunity in government section invited by PSC, and for many candidates the already applied is the last chance. They will be disqualified by age over in future notification of PSC. So pray for atleast conducting a supplementary examination for June 2012 and provide a mercy opportunity for candidates for appearing the same. UGC can make the criteria as 65% aggregate. Because students are well aware of criteria before exam they could prepare well for exam and can avail a certificate of NET valid from June 2012 result, which will not make their existing PSC application invalid. It is a mercy application of student and SC should direct UGC to conduct such an examination as UGC conducted a supplememntary exam for June 2013 candidates for misallocation of seating arrangement on September 8. Moreover in the page 14 and 15 of the Supreme court order refers UGC's SLP related to grievance. According to it there were 2 types of grievance
1)Grievances related to insufficient information in the advertisement:
In this UGC agrees that in the earlier all 3 papers were considered only for JRF. And in future announcement it will make more clear. From this it is clear that June candidates were not announced that fact.
2)Grievances related to the uniform and high cut-off for UGC-NET across various disciplines
The second grievance were considered by a supplementary result in november 2012
So students can request for a supplementary exam as the grievance said in the first os above is not solved
This is only prayer which make you to get yiur e certificate of June.