Skip to main content

Admission to Class XI not automatic if school switches affiliation

Students who pass the class X Board examination in a CBSE school cannot claim automatic admission to class XI in the same school if the institution switches its affiliation to the State Board for higher secondary classes, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has ruled.

Allowing a writ appeal preferred by a private school based in Thoothukudi district, Justices Nooty Ramamohana Rao and S.S. Sundar said the schooling facility offered by such institutions must be considered to have come to an end when students pass out of Class X. “It is for the student concerned to exercise the option of either continuing in CBSE pattern in Class XI and XII or switching over to State Board syllabus. If a student decides to continue his studies in Standard XI and under the CBSE pattern, he has to obviously seek admission in some other educational institution where such facilities are available,” the Bench said.

“On the other hand, if he [the student] opts to switch over to State Board of education, then he can seek continuation in the same school. But even in such a case, he has to apply for admission afresh,” the judge said concurring with submissions made by senior counsel Isaac Mohanlal appearing for the Principal of Sakthi Vinayagar Hindu Vidyalaya in Thoothukudi.

 Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/admission-to-class-xi-not-automatic-if-school-switches-affiliation-hc/article9016068.ece

Comments

  1. Anuj Sharma3 July 2020 at 20:13

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more