JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging inordinate delay caused by respondents in publishing the result of the petitioner in UGC National Eligibility Test conducted during June, 2014 to the post of Assistant Professor in English, as per the corrected answer key, and for issuing her qualifying certificate of eligibility. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is an OBC candidate and according to the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 procedure and criteria for declaration of result for UGC NET conducted on 29.06.2014, the aggregate qualifying percentage of marks is prescribed as 51.43% in English subject for Assistant Professor, for OBC candidates. There were some corrections in the answer key initially published by the respondents, and hence it was corrected and published again in April, 2015. As per the earlier answer key, petitioner had obtained only 50.86%. But, as per the corrected answer key, she obtained 53.7% and became qualified for UGC NET against eligibility for Assistant Professor. According to the petitioner, in spite of making several requests and Ext.P4 representation, respondents have not published her result as per the corrected answer key and not issued her qualifying certificate. It is in this background, seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed. 3. First respondent has filed a statement refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. According to the 1st respondent, in order to maintain a uniform standard of teaching and research in the country, the Government of India as per its New Education Policy, 1986, envisaged that "only those candidates who besides fulfilling the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer, have qualified in a comprehensive test to be specifically conducted for the purpose will be eligible for appointment as Lecturers." Accordingly, UGC conducted the first test for Junior Research Fellow and eligibility for lectureship on 24.12.1989 in the subjects falling under Humanities and Social Sciences, including languages. Therefore, it is well within the right of the UGC to prescribe the format of examination, curriculum, structure of papers, qualifying criteria and subject-wise qualifying cut-off marks for UGC NET, so as to achieve the purpose of maintenance of standards in the field of higher education as the persons declared eligible for lectureship. Therefore, it is well within the right of the UGC to prescribe the format of examination, curriculum, structure of papers, qualifying criteria and subject-wise qualifying cut-off marks for UGC NET, so as to achieve the purpose of maintenance of standards in the field of higher education as the persons declared eligible for lectureship. It is also stated that while inviting on-line applications for June 2014, UGC-NET, a notification was issued by the UGC wherein the 'Conditions of Eligibility' to participate in the NET examination were mentioned in paragraph 3 and the 'Scheme and Date of Test" was mentioned in paragraph 7. The procedure and criteria for declaration of result stipulated under paragraph 7 of the said notification deals with the steps in considering the applications submitted by the applicants. The aggregate qualifying cut-off percentage for English subject under OBC category was 51.43%. However, petitioner could secure only 50.29% and hence could not qualify in this examination. Paper-wise break up of the marks secured by the petitioner are also given. 4. It is also stated that, UGC while declaring the result of June, 2014 UGC-NET notified on its website that the candidates having any grievances with regard to answer keys even after declaration of this result may send a written request as per prescribed proforma uploaded on the website to the Head, UGC NET Bureau, South Campus, University of Delhi, supporting their stand with proof from standard books/literature, along with a DD of Rs.5,000/-. All such representations received in response to the said notification were got examined by expert committees of respective subjects. Wherever changes were suggested by the expert committees, UHV has also updated the answer key as well as the marks statements of the candidates and uploaded the same on its website. A copy of the updated mark sheet of the petitioner uploaded on the UGC website after redressal of grievance is given below:- "Paper-I Paper-II Paper-III Grand Total Marks obtained 44 44 90 178 Max. Marks 100 100 150 350 Percentage 44.00% 44.00% 60.00% 50.86%." 5. After redressal of grievance, petitioner has secured 50.86%, which is below the aggregate qualifying cut off percentage for English subject under OBC category. Therefore, the petitioner failed to secure the qualifying marks after rederessal of grievances also. The enhanced marks of candidates following redressal of grievances on 24.04.2015 was uploaded on the UGC website for wide dissemination. After redressal of grievance, petitioner has secured 50.86%, which is below the aggregate qualifying cut off percentage for English subject under OBC category. Therefore, the petitioner failed to secure the qualifying marks after rederessal of grievances also. The enhanced marks of candidates following redressal of grievances on 24.04.2015 was uploaded on the UGC website for wide dissemination. The statement made by the petitioner under paragraph 3 of the writ petition that as per the corrected answer key subsequently published by the respondents, she obtained 53.7% is incorrect, misleading and baseless. Petitioner is well aware of the fact that she could secure only 50.86% marks and yet misleading the court by stating that she had secured 53.7% marks in aggregate. The marks secured by all candidates are in the public domain and are uploaded on the UGC website. A copy of each of the OMR sheets of Papers I, II and III are also given. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are devoid of any merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the averment in paragraph 10 that the enhanced marks of candidates following redressal of grievances on 24.04.2015 was uploaded on the UGC website is not correct and hence denied. The statement filed by the 1st respondent is without any bona-fides and that the marks awarded under the corrected answer key was not provided to the petitioner and therefore, the contentions raised in the writ petition are to be taken into consideration and necessary relief may be granted, is the contention advanced in the reply affidavit. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner, including the additional document produced by the petitioner along with application for accepting the same. 8. The formidable contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is the corrected answer key provided and as per which petitioner is entitled to get the marks which were not granted after the corrected answer key was published. 8. The formidable contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is the corrected answer key provided and as per which petitioner is entitled to get the marks which were not granted after the corrected answer key was published. However, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Ext.P3 was issued after the publication of Ext.P5 and therefore, whatever marks, entitled to the petitioner were awarded to the petitioner. Conspicuously, in Exts.P3 as well as in Ext.P5 there are no dates shown. Therefore, I am unable to consider whether Ext.P5 was issued subsequent to Ext.P3. Exts.P3 and P5 are not disputed by the respondents. However, fact remains, if Ext.P5 is issued after Ext.P3, definitely, petitioner is entitled to secure marks as provided under the corrected answer key, and it could also be vice versa, if Ext.P5 is issued prior to Ext.P3. The said contention advanced by the petitioner is not actually answered by the respondents in the statement filed. In view of the said stalemate occurred, I am of the considered opinion, the issue requires a re-look by the appropriate authority. 9. Therefore, taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, I think it is only appropriate that respondent no. 3 considers the issue in accordance with the contentions raised by the respective parties, and the observations made above. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the 3rd respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and if such a representation is filed, it shall be considered by the 3rd respondent within six weeks thereafter, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.