UGC-NET results out for 84 subjects, over 4,000 qualify for JRF

Results for 84 Subjects

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has announced the results of the University Grants Commission National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET) for 84 subjects, with more than 4,000 candidates qualifying for the Junior Research Fellowship (JRF).

A senior NTA official, quoted by The Hindu late on Friday, August 28, 2026, said 6.07 lakh candidates appeared for the examination across the 84 subjects. Of those, more than 97,000 qualified for PhD admissions and more than 4,000 for the JRF.

The NET is run by the NTA to decide whether Indian nationals are eligible to work as assistant professors and to hold the Junior Research Fellowship at Indian universities and colleges.

Errors in Three Question Papers

The examinations were held in June. The NTA released the UGC-NET answer key on August 16, close to two months after the test was conducted.

On the same day, the agency issued a special notice about the Sociology, Commerce and English papers. An expert committee had found factual, typographical, translation and language related errors in those question papers, according to both The Hindu and newsonair.gov.in.

Later on August 16, the NTA said the three examinations would be conducted again because of those errors.

September Re-examinations

The re-examinations for Sociology, Commerce and English are scheduled for September 9 and September 10.

Candidates sitting them will not have to pay an additional fee, both publications report.

Points Not Addressed in the Reporting

The available reports do not say how many candidates are affected by the three re-examinations, nor whether the 84-subject result covers Sociology, Commerce and English or excludes them pending the September sittings.

No date has been given for the results of the re-examinations. The reports also do not say how the errors came to be in the papers, or whether anyone has been held responsible.

Neither report deals with the CSIR-UGC NET, the separate science stream test, so nothing here should be read as applying to it.