1 wp2630.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2630 OF 2009 Nandkishor s/o Yohan Brahmane, Age: 37 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Loni Khurd, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Director of Higher Education, Mumbai. 2. University of Pune. Through its Registrar, Ganesh Khind, Pune-7. 3. Director of B.C.U.D. of University of Pune, (Board of College & University Development), Ganesh Khind, Pune-7. 4. The Principal, Belapur Education Societies Arts & Commerce College, Belapur, Tq. Shriramplur, District Ahmednagar. 5. University Grants Commission, Through its Chairman, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002. ...RESPONDENTS 2 wp2630.09 ... Mr. V.J. Dixit, Sr. Advocate holding for Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Kale, Advocate holding for Mr. Arvind R. Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. S.R. Bharad, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. ... CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH MARCH, 2011 PER COURT : The University Grants Commission has prescribed a certain criteria for being appointed as Lecturers on a prescribed Pay Scale. One criterion is that the person who desires to be appointed as Lecturer must clear the eligibility test (NET/SET). Accordingly, the Maharashtra State issued a Government Resolution prescribing the conditions of the eligibility for appearing for the State Eligibility Test. These are as follows : 3 wp2630.09 "3(a) The Candidates other than SC/ST category who have secured at least 55% marks without grace in Master's Degree Or equivalent examination, are eligible for this test. For SC/ST/PH/VH(PH-Physically handicapped. VH-Visually handicapped i.e. Blind) category candidates who have secured at least 50% marks (without grace) in Master's Degree Or equivalent examination are eligible for this test. (b) Those candidates who have secured even 54.99% marks or below (even 49.99% marks or below for SC/ST/PH/VH candidates) in Master's Degree Examination are NOT eligible for this Test. (c) to (h) ..............." 2. By the present petition, the petitioner who is a candidate from the reserved classes contends that the eligibility criteria for the candidates belonging to these classes cannot be equated and should not be same as those for the 4 wp2630.09 candidates from the general category. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that such candidates should be permitted to score 50% marks in the Master's Degree, inclusive of grace marks. According to the petitioner, the denial of the grace marks which he had secured at the Master's Degree has resulted in him not being able to appear for the NET/SET and therefore his appointment has not been approved. Consequently, his services have been terminated. 3. In our opinion, the submissions on behalf of the petitioner are fallacious. The eligibility criterion for those who do not belong to the reserved category is that such candidates must secure at least 55% marks, without grace, for the Master's Degree or equivalent examination. However, those who belong to the reserved classes ( i.e. SC/ST/PH/VH ) are require to secure at least 50% marks for the Master's Degree or equivalent examination, without grace. Only such candidates are eligible for appearing NET/SET. 5 wp2630.09 Therefore, there is a difference of 5% in the marks which are to be obtained by the persons belonging to the reserved category as opposed to those belonging to the general category. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the persons belonging to the reserved classes should be eligible for appearing for the NET/SET by including grace marks obtained by them at the Master's Degree examination. According to him, when the University has passed the candidate with 50% marks by including 3 marks secured by him as grace, the U.G.C. cannot have a different standard. 5. In our opinion, this submission is untenable. The distinction between the marks required from the two categories of the candidates is apparent. The difference being of 5%, the only requisite is that the candidates ought not to have pass with grace marks. In fact, in order to avoid ambiguity, it is stipulated that those candidates 6 wp2630.09 belonging to the general category who had secured even 54.99% or below and those from the reserved category who had secured 49.99% at the Master's Degree examination were not entitled to appear for SET. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is without merit. 6. In our opinion, the policy laid down by the University Grants Commission cannot be changed by us and in any event, we do not find that the policy is discriminatory. If the University Grants Commission has thought it fit not to consider those candidates who had passed with grace marks, in our opinion, it has committed no error. The policy of requiring a candidate to pass without grace marks in order to be eligible for appearing for the SET is laudable. The petition is rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] sut/Mar11/wp2630.09