P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

The criteria fixed by the University Grants Commission for qualifying the National Eligibility Test is under challenge in these writ petitions. Exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they appear in WP.(C).No.5190 of 2016. The National Eligibility Test ('the NET', for short) is provided for in the regulations issued by the University Grants Commission ('the UGC', for short) for appointment of teachers and academic staff in Universities and Colleges. The petitioner in WP.(C).No.5190 of 2016 is a body engaged in running various educational institutions including Arts and Science Colleges and the petitioner in WP(C).No.24730 of 2016 is a candidate who failed to qualify in the last NET.

2. The short facts relevant for adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petitions are the following:

The UGC is a body constituted by virtue of the provisions contained in the University Grants Commission Act for coordination and determination of the standards in institutions for Higher Education. In exercise of the powers conferred under the said statute, the UGC issued Ext.P1 Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges. As per Ext.P1 Regulations, only candidates who qualify the NET are eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor in Universities and Colleges. The criteria for qualifying the NET are being fixed by the UGC from time to time. Pass in the NET is the criterion for award of Junior Research Fellowship also. Ext.P2 is the notification issued by the third respondent on behalf of the UGC for the NET held during December 2015. In Ext.P2, it is provided that the minimum marks to be obtained in the NET for the award of Junior Research Fellowship and eligibility for appointment as Assistant professor are, 40% for papers I and II and 50% for paper III for general candidates and 35% for papers I and II and 40% for paper III for OBC (Other Backward Communities), PWD (Persons With Disability), SC (Scheduled Caste) and ST (Scheduled Tribe) candidates. It is also provided in Ext.P2 notification that the merit lists of the candidates who secure minimum marks will be prepared thereafter subject wise as also category wise based on the aggregate marks secured by the candidates in all the three papers and the top 15% candidates in all the categories will be declared NET qualified for each subject. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said criteria stipulated in Ext.P2 notification. According to them, in the light of the lower minimum marks prescribed for the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, the number of candidates securing minimum marks in the NET from the reserved categories is far above the number of candidates securing minimum marks in the NET from the general category, and therefore, when the top 15% of candidates from each category, subject wise, are qualified in the NET, the qualified candidates in the NET from the reserved categories far outnumber the qualified candidates from the general category, infringing the fundamental right of equal opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution to the candidates belonging to general category in matters relating to public employment. It is the specific case of the petitioner in WP.(C) No.5190 of 2016 that since candidates are qualified in the NET in the aforesaid manner, there is dearth of sufficient number of candidates for appointment against open vacancies and consequently, less meritorious candidates belonging to reserved categories are usurping the open vacancies. According to the petitioners, the said mode of selection is deteriorating the quality of higher education in the country. The petitioners, therefore, seek a declaration that Clause 8 of Ext.P2 notification is unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They