In an order with huge ramifications, especially for the candidates belonging to Jat community who had qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the University Grant Commission(UGC) in December 2014 under the other backward class(OBC) category , the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that such candidates should be disqualified.In a detailed judgment, released last week, the HC clarified, “Since the result was declared after the date on which the notification declaring Jats under the OBC quota was rejected by the Supreme Court, they cannot take advantage of the notification.”Justice R K Jain of the HC passed these orders while hearing a bunch of petitions filed by Anil Kumar of Hisar and others. “I am of the considered opinion that there is no force in this petition as the petitioners had not become eligible by the time when the result has been declared by the UGC on June 15, 2015, as in between the decision of the Supreme Court, passed on March 17, 2015, had come, quashing the notification of March 4, 2014, by which Jat community , was declared OBC in Haryana,” observed Justice Jain while dismiss sing the petitions.The March 4, 2014, notification declaring Jats under the OBC was challenged before the apex court, which on March 17, 2016, quashed the notification holding that the community are not to be treated as OBC in Haryana. Following SC order, the UGC passed an order on May 12, 2016, declaring the petitioners disqualified in the UGC-NET held in December 2014.The facts of the case are that a notification was issued by the Union government on March 4, 2014, including Jats in Haryana in OBCs. The petitioners, being Jats of Haryana, were issued OBC certificates by the competent authority . UGC conducted the NET examination on December 28, 2014, for the eligibility for assistant professor. The petitioners applied under the OBC category in the test and qualified the test. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioners had approached the HC seeking rejecting of UGC decision. Dismissing their plea, HC has held that the matter would have been altogether different had the petitioners’ result been declared before March 17, 2015, then perhaps the right would have been vested in them after the declaration of result and they might have been protected.
For more news updates Follow and Like us on Facebook