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

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more