Ritin Kujur S/o Shri K. Vinod Kujur Aged About 23 Years R/o Qtr. No v. 1. University Grants Commission Through Secretary University Grants Commission
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7166-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 26 of 2025 Ritin Kujur S/o Shri K. Vinod Kujur Aged About 23 Years R/o Qtr. No. 5/17 Sector 9 Bhilai Durg Chahttisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. University Grants Commission Through Secretary University Grants Commission (UGC) Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 2. National Testing Agency Through Director (Exams) NTA First Floor NSIC – MDBP Building Okhla Industrial Estate New Delhi ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Smriti Ekka, Advocate. Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate. Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 10 .02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Smriti Ekka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.12 19:21:25 +0530 respondent No. 2. 2 2. The present writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 Issue a writ/direction to the respondent No.2/NTA to afford the registered applicants of the UGC-NET December 2024 exam an opportunity to change the test centers earlier opted by them, if so desired (by the applicants), for the new exam date i.e. 27.01.2025, and/or award appropriate compensation to the registered applicants affected by the last minute postponement of UGC-NET, December 2024 exam on 15.01.2025. 10.2 Issue a writ/direction to the respondents to formulate appropriate guidelines regarding conduction of public exams aiming to deal with such instances of cancellation of exams, rescheduling, refund / compensation in case of cancellation/rescheduling of exams, etc. to protect the interest of the applicants / stakeholders. 10.3 Any other relief(s) that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by way of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned public notice dated 13.01.2025 published by the respondent No. 2, whereby the said respondent has arbitrarily and in an unfair manner, rescheduled the UGC- 3 NET December 2024 exam for the courses which were originally scheduled to be conducted on 15.01.2025 to later date of 27.01.2025. Further, the respondent No. 2 cited that they have received representations to postpone the UGC-NET December 2024 on account of regional festivals (Pongal, Makar Sankranti and other festivals) on 15.01.2025. She also submits that the impugned notice dated 13.01.2025 containing the information regarding rescheduling of the exam was conveyed to the stakeholders/registered applicants just two days prior to the original date of exam. Such an irrational decision of the respondents has resulted in mental distress and panic amongst the stakeholders, as it is a legitimate expectation of the applicants/stakeholders that such an exam which is conducted on the national level will be conducted as per the schedule published by the body entrusted with conducting the exam in a proper manner. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 have cited unqualified reasons for rescheduling the exam on 15.01.2025 at the very last minute ignoring the fact that many stakeholders/applicants have selected exam Centers and coordinated their travel and stay plans according to the exam schedule released by the respondent No. 2/NTA. This has resulted in panic and distress amongst the stakeholders as not only have they suffered financially for the arrangements (travel, accommodation, etc.) made for the original date of examination, but now they have to make fresh arrangements in such a short period of time, and the same is against the interest of the public/stakeholders at large. She would submit that this incident also raises grave concern regarding the complete lack of accountability of 4 such bodies conducting public examinations as well as the complete lack of guidelines, rules, regulations in conduction of public and competitive examinations at both the national as well as the state level by various authorized testing bodies. She also placed reliance of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Others vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Services & Others, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 34 held as under: “34. Furthermore, even where a writ petition has been held to be not entertainable on the ground or otherwise of lack entertained a writ petition. In an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a Court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal grievance, the necessity of litigation in the interest of justice. Thus, a private interest case can also be treated as public interest case.” 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 submit that with regard to relief prayed by the petitioner clause in 10.1 is concerned, it has become infructuous, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as other prayers made in the present petition are concerned they are vague one. They also submits that the petitioner has personal interest in filing the present petition, as the petitioner had also participated UGC-NET December, 2024 exam, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the present petition. 7. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, it is relevant to mention that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. 8. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well-settled that the Courts, before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests. 9. The Court cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes, as was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., Public Interest Litigation has been abused at Para 143 by observing as under: 6 “143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.” 10. We are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, it transpires from the pleadings in the present PIL that the petitioner has personal interest in the matter as he could not sit in the examination in question and also considering the fact that the relief prayed by the petitioner in 10.1 has become infructuous and so far as other prayers are concerned the same is kept open to be adjudicated upon in another suitable case. Further, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the present case, hence, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the present Public Interest Litigation. 11. Accordingly, the present petition styled as Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. 7 12. The security amount which was deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan