Category: Education

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.…

NEET PG – Rejection of candidature to Post Graduate Medical Seat – Petitioner is a U.S. National holds an Overseas Citizen of India card by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) – Eligibility to claim the benefit of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holder is undeniable – Rejection of her candidature is not supportable in law

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALLAVI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

Right to Education Act, 2009 – Section 23(1) – Appointment to Post of Primary School Teachers – Decision of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers in a primary school seems arbitrary, unreasonable and in fact has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act i.e. Right to Education Act, which is to give to children not only free and compulsory but also ‘quality’ education

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVESH SHARMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause, in Article 14 of the Constitution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEV GUPTA — Appellant Vs. PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.