Category: Education

Haryana School Education Act, 1995, Section 22 — Civil Court Jurisdiction — Ouster of jurisdiction by statute must be express or implied — Section 22 only ousts jurisdiction where Government or its officers have power to adjudicate — Recovery of fees by a school is not a power conferred on Government/authorities — Civil court jurisdiction not ousted in matters of reasonable fee recovery.

2025 INSC 925 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH APEEJAY SCHOOL Vs. DHRITI DUGGAL AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI., K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria, JJ.…

Education Law — Admissions — Eligibility Criteria — Prospectus issued by University — Amendments and Addendums — Appellant admitted to postgraduate program based on provisional admission — Completed course and received degree — University withdrew degree based on initial ineligibility — Court held that due to confusion and uncertainty caused by frequent changes in eligibility criteria, the benefit should go to the appellant, especially since she had completed the course with good marks.

2025 INSC 882 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAKSHI CHAUHAN Vs. DR. YASHWANT SINGH PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE & FORESTRY, NAUNI AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI.…

Determining Equivalence — The decision on whether a particular qualification should be regarded as equivalent to the prescribed qualification lies with the state or the recruiting authority, not the court — This is a technical academic matter that cannot be implied or assumed. — Any decision by an academic body or university regarding the equivalence of qualifications must be made through a specific order or resolution, which should be duly published — A mere certificate without such formal backing is not sufficient to establish equivalence.

2024 INSC 580 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIFANA P.S. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta,…

NEET Examination — Supreme Court ruled that a fresh NEET (UG) 2024 examination is not necessary, and the results of the examination should be declared as valid, subject to certain modifications — The Court found no systemic breach in the sanctity of the examination and no conclusive material to lead to the conclusion that the entire result stands vitiated or that there was a systemic leak of the question paper — The Court allowed students with individual grievances to pursue their rights and remedies in accordance with law, including by moving the jurisdictional High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution — The Court also constituted a seven-member Expert Committee to strengthen the process of conducting NEET (UG) and other examinations and prevent similar instances in the future.

2024 INSC 553 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VANSHIKA YADAV — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J…

The Court found the cancellation of admission arbitrary and discriminatory, as the appellant could not control his father’s deployment location – The Court analyzed previous judgments and guidelines, concluding that the appellant was entitled to admission under the State quota irrespective of his father’s posting – The Court directed the creation of an additional seat for the appellant in the next academic session and awarded compensation for the arbitrary cancellation of his admission.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VANSH S/O PRAKASH DOLAS — Appellant Vs. THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Kannur University Act, 1996 – Section 10(9) and Section 10(10) – Re-appointment of Vice-Chancellor – It is the Chancellor who has been conferred with the competence under the Act 1996 to appoint or reappoint a Vice-Chancellor – No other person even the Pro-Chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority and if any decision is taken by a statutory authority

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.,…

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 23(1) – Appointment of teachers for Class I to VIII – Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point, it can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed – An authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS RESPONDENT ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

You missed