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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
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