The judgment established the binding nature of eligibility conditions, the authority of UGC to assign the responsibility of determining equivalence to AIU, and the technical nature of equivalence.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. This batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involves a similar issue, therefore, the same is being decided by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from W.P.(C) 3082/2014. However, wherever necessary, the facts and grounds from individual matters are also referred to.

2. The petitioners have challenged Clause 3 (vi) of the notification of the University Grants Commission-National Eligibility Test, June, 2012 (in short, UGC-NET examination, June 2012), imposed by respondent No.1- University Grants Commission (in short, UGC) to the extent it requires the candidates to compulsorily hold a Master's degree or equivalence by the Association of Indian Universities (in short, AIU), for appearing in the said examination.

3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 3082/2014 have undergone a Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM)/Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management (PGDBM) courses from the respective institutions which are recognized by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), between the years 2002 to 2009.

4. In the year 2012, UGC invited applications for UGC-NET examination, which was to be conducted on 24.06.2012. The examination, namely, UGC-NET is conducted for determining the eligibility of Indian nationals for the award of Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and eligibility for Lectureship in Indian universities and colleges. The petitioners being desirous of appearing in the said examination had submitted their forms and consequently they appeared in the examination. It is the case of the petitioners that they successfully passed the examination, however, on account of Clause 3 (vi) of the notification for the UGC-NET examination, June 2012, the certificates of passing the examination were not issued in their favour. The petitioners, therefore, submitted that Clause 3 (vi) of the UGC-NET examination is illegal and the same is contrary to the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short, the UGC Act, 1956) and other laws applicable thereto.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that firstly, the AIU is not a statutory body, the same is neither created under any statute nor is it governed by any statutory Act. Secondly, the UGC cannot outsource its primary function to deal with higher education to a non- statutory body like AIU. Thirdly, the UGC in its regulations has already recognized the courses undertaken by the candidates from accredited institutions by AICTE. It is, therefore, submitted that when the AICTE has granted the equivalence certificate to some of the candidates, the same should have been accepted by the UGC and the result of the petitioners should not have been withheld only on the ground that their diplomas were not determined to be equivalent to a Master's degree by AIU. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to the aforesaid submissions, also points out that various documents placed on record obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 would clearly indicate that AIU itself has clarified that the said society does not grant any equivalence of degree. She specifically referred to the communication dated 22.10.2013 made by AIU to one Chandra Shekhar Singh stating therein that AIU does not accord equivalence to the degrees awarded by Indian University and according to her, equivalence requirement by AIU is illegal and improper and, therefore, the decision of withholding the result of the petitioners needs to be set aside. She also states that the UGC has not authorized by way of any rule or notification, the AIU to grant equivalence to diplomas/certificates as Master's degree.

6. The learned counsel places reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Nidhi Dhamija v. University Grants Commission and Ors., W.P.(C) 4160/2011 and states that in the said case, the concerned candidate was granted equivalence by the AI