Skip to main content

Student passing public examination cannot be denied admission into next higher class of his old school

In Panchu Gopal Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal Education Department and Ors., W.P. 23637(W) of 2018 Decided On: 04.12.2018, the son of the writ petitioner has been denied admission in class XI in Mathurapur Arya Vidyapith (HS). It is to be noted that the son of the writ petitioner studied in the said school from class V to X and took his Madhyamik Pariksha, 2018 from the said school and successfully passed the said examination. For this the petitioners referred to judgments of Supreme Court in Principal, Cambridge School and Anr. Vs. Payal Gupta (Ms) and Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 512 and Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors. Vs. Sourabh Chaudhary & Ors. reported in 2009) 1 SCC 794.

The Calcutta High Court decided that it is clear from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the son of the writ petitioner had passed the Madhyamik Pariksha, 2018 and, accordingly, he was very much eligible to join class XI. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above deal with this aspect directly. In Payal Gupta (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically stated that the question of an admission test or the result in a particular class or school for purposes of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes for admission in some other institution.  The question of an admission test or the result in a particular class or school for purposes of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes for admission in some other institution. The question of admission test on the basis of result in a particular class will not be taken into account in the case of a student of the same school who passes the public examination. One can have no objection to a school laying down cut-off marks for selection of suitable stream/course for a student giving due regard to his/her aptitude as reflected from the Class X marks where there are more than one stream. But it would be quite unreasonable and unjust to throw out a student from the school because he failed to get the cut-off marks in the Class X examination. After all the school must share at least some responsibility for the poor performance of its student and should help him in trying to do better in the next higher class. The school may of course give him the stream/course that may appear to be most suitable for him on the basis of the prescribed cut-off marks.

In the present case, it would have been perfectly open to the appellants to offer admission to the boy, Saurabh Chaudhary in Class XI in streams/courses other than Science stream with Mathematics on the basis of the prescribed cut-off level of marks, had such courses been available in Central School No. 2, AFS, Tambaram. But this school has only Science stream with Mathematics for Classes XI and XII. The decision in Payal forbids the school from turning down a student because he/she failed to get the cut-off level of marks for admission to Class XI. As a result of this fortuitous circumstance the boy must get admission in Class XI in Central School No. 2, AFS, Tambaram in Science stream with Mathematics.

Needless to say, based on the above decision, the Calcutta High Court directed the respondent school to immediately grant admission to the son of the writ petitioner so that he can continue his studies in class XI and XII in the said school.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more