JUDGMENT 1. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, a common order is being passed to dispose of both these writ petitions. 2. Both the writ petitioners herein appeared for the National Eligibility Test (NET) which was held on 24.6.2012 by the respondent. NET is conducted by the respondent to make a candidate eligible to be appointed as a teacher in a College recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC). 3. As per the Notification issued by the UGC, the UGC’s NET exams would be conducted in an objective mode from June 2012 onwards and the test would consist of three papers. All the three papers would be held in two separate sessions and the candidates are required to obtain the minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III. Candidates belonging to the General Category are required to obtain 40 marks (40%) in Paper I, 40 marks (40%) in Paper II and 75 marks (50%) in Paper III and OBC Non-creamy Layer candidates are required to obtain 35 (35%) in Paper I, 35 (35%) in Paper II and 68 (45%) in Paper III. In so far as PH/VH/SC/ST candidates are concerned, they are required to obtain a minimum of 35 (35%) in Paper I, 35 (35%) in Paper II and 60 (40%) in Paper III. Only such candidates who obtained the minimum required marks in each paper separately as mentioned above would be considered for final preparation of result. 4. It is the case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions that they obtained the minimum required marks as notified in the Notification in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, but, they were not declared as qualified in the UGC’s NET exams. The reason for their failure to clear the UGC NET is that, the UGC prescribed category-wise qualifying criteria for lectureship eligibility, according to which, the General Category candidate should not only obtain the minimum required marks as stated in the notification, but also, should obtain 65% of aggregate of all the three papers. Similarly, OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidates should not only obtain the minimum qualifying marks in all the three papers as stated in the notification, but also, should obtain 60% aggregate of all the three papers. Similarly, OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidates should not only obtain the minimum qualifying marks in all the three papers as stated in the notification, but also, should obtain 60% aggregate of all the three papers. SC/ST/PWD category candidates are not only required to score the minimum marks in each paper as stated in the notification, but also should obtain 5% of aggregate of all three papers. In view of the higher aggregate of all the three papers prescribed by the UGC, all the writ petitioners herein are not able to qualify in the NET exam held on 24.06.2012 even though they obtained the minimum required marks in Paper I, Paper II and paper III as notified in the notification. Hence, they approached this Hon’ble Court and filed the above writ petitions for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent UGC. I have also gone through the entire documents available on record. 6. when similar writ petitions were filed before the Kerala High Court in W.P. No. 22187/2012, etc. in a batch of cases allowed all the writ petitions on 17.12.2012 and held that the UGC has no power nor jurisdiction to fix up a higher aggregate of marks than what has been stated in the Notification and consequently directed the UGC to declare the results of the writ petitioners as qualified in the NET, if they secured the minimum marks as stated in the Notification. 7. When identically placed candidates approached this Hon’ble Court, questioning the action of the UGC in prescribing higher percentage of aggregate of marks as the qualifying criteria, this Court in W.P. No.29373/2012, etc. in a batch of cases on 31.01.2013 allowed all the writ petitions as prayed for and the learned Single Judge was in agreement with the law laid down by the Kerala High Court and accordingly held that the UGC has no jurisdiction to prescribe the higher percentage of aggregate of marks than what has been stated in the notification. 8. Following the judgment of this Court dated 31.01.2013 in W.P. No.29373/2012, etc., I also allowed a number of writ petitions in W.P.No.4039/2013, etc. 8. Following the judgment of this Court dated 31.01.2013 in W.P. No.29373/2012, etc., I also allowed a number of writ petitions in W.P.No.4039/2013, etc. in a batch of cases, on 19.03.2013, by holding that the writ petitioners ought to be declared as cleared the NET held on 24.06.2012, if they had obtained the minimum required marks prescribed, in all the three papers, as mentioned in the notification. 9. In View of the above, both the writ petitions have to be allowed as the issue involved is identical and similar to that of the earlier writ petitions. Consequently the proceedings fixing the category-wise qualification criteria for the lectureship eligibility cannot therefore be imposed on the petitioners. 10. Hence, both the above writ petitions are allowed and the respondent UGC is directed to take necessary follow up action on the basis of this judgment and issue necessary certificates to the petitioners herein within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.