M.Phil degree or submittedPh.D thesis in the concerned subject upto 31st December v. SADHANA CHAUDHARY(1996 (10) SCC 536) and by a judgment of theDevision Bench & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petitions are dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 14
Judgment
Operative part
WPC.No.13778 OF 2009 & 22527 OF 2009: 2 :candidates who have completed M.Phil degree or submittedPh.D thesis in the concerned subject upto 31st December, 1993are exempted from appearing in the NET examination.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notifications are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the petitioners are entitled to teach in the under graduate level.4. The learned Standing Counsel for PSC submitted that the issues raised are covered against the petitioners in the light of a decision of the apex court reported in UNIVERSITYGRANTS COMMISSION VS. SADHANA CHAUDHARY ANDOTHERS(1996 (10) SCC 536) and by a judgment of the Devision Bench of this Court BIJU VS. UNIVERSITY OFKERALA ( 2008(1)KLT 707). In the latter decision the very same regulation was under consideration. In the judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in SUMITHRA DEVI ANDOTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2007(4)KLT 587), it is held that the regulations are valid and the exemption will not apply to this State. The said view was upheld by the judgment of the Division Bench in BIJU WPC.No.13778 OF 2009 & 22527 OF 2009: 3 :VS.UNIVERSITY OF KERALA ( 2008(1)KLT 707). It washeld that the regulations cannot be treated as arbitrary. 5. Therefore the issue raised herein is covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Division Bench. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that cut of date under the earlier notification cannot also be upheld. But the said issue is covered against the petitioner by the judgment of the apex court in UNIVERSITY GRANTSCOMMISSION VS. SADHANA CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS.It was held that the cut of date fixed is not arbitrary. Thereforethe petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. The writ petitions are dismissed.T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.jma
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petitions are dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 14.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 18 Aug 2009. The bench was T R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.